#1) no it's not; 2) ask yourself if justifying genocide is something you really want to be doing in any circumstance | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

socialist-microwave-laser · 4 months

Note

Hey the increase in antisemitism is horrible. I want to do everything I can to help. Just so I know the right thing to do, does "listen to Jews and give us space to mourn" include listening to Zionist? Many of them are Jews. Many of them won't say they're Zionists, that they're Just Jews, and don't know why people Just Hate Jews now, while calling even the gentlest opposition to textbook war crimes antisemitic.

Like, you say Listen to Jews, and I think, sure that sounds good. And then on Twitter there is a guy with a giant star of David on a flag as his icon, saying All Us Jews Have a Right to Defend Ourselves and our Jewishness and what he means is the right to depopulate and flatten Gaza and turn it into a gleaming modern city free of arabs. And he is doing this under literally the flag of the star of david

So as a person concerned with justice and really trying to do the right thing, do I listen to that Jew? Because those are absolutely the loudest voices in the room right now,that's the army and the government and their loudest supporters, and most of the times I hear people say the word "antisemitism" what they mean is "not patronizing corporations that materially support genocide", and when they say "attack on Jews as bad as the Holocaust" they often mean "resistance to Israeli occupation of stolen land"

sorry i'm answering this four days late, tumblr mobile is awful about telling you when you have new asks lmfao

honestly the answer here is yes. you do listen to zionists. you actually should listen to jews who identify as zionists VERY closely for a few different reasons

zionism is a word that has very different meanings within and without jewish spaces. this is something i've talked about a lot on my blog, but basically, many jews use this to describe a feeling of connection to eretz israel, the land of the people israel, and doesn't inherently have anything to do with the israeli government. you should be able to find posts where i talk about this at this link [x]

you say so yourself that many people will say one thing and mean another, and that's definitely true, but the problem is that you won't know who's doing that without listening to them. many jews saying those exact things are very explicitly against the israeli government

along a similar vein, it's important to listen to why a jew says something is antisemitic. like yeah there are some people who equate any critique of medinas israel (the state of israel) as antisemitism, but there are also people who very rightfully have called out popular anti-zionist talking points as antisemitic and were then dismissed as zionist (even if this person very explicitly states that they are not a zionist). for example, when susan sarandon got fired, as people put it, "for attending a pro-palestinian rally." it was actually because she said the "people that are afraid of being jewish at this time... are getting a taste of what it feels like to be a muslim in [the united states]" [x] that statement is horrifically antisemitic because it 1) suggests that the rise in antisemitism (a 541% increase from last year as of last week [x]) is justified and 2) suggests that antisemitism is somehow a new thing in the us that jews are just now beginning to experience. in this instance it would be very important to listen to someone explain WHY they felt what she said was antisemitic, bc at first blush it just sounds like one of those cases of equating support for palestinian liberation with antisemitism

honestly i feel this is most important, which is why i put it last. to quote rami elhanan: “how will you get respect if you don’t give respect? once you are able to listen to the pain of the other, you can expect the other to listen to your pain." in that same talk, bassam aramin said “don’t claim that you own the truth always. people’s stories are their truth. you need to listen, respect, then the other side will listen to you and your pain." this was a lesson i learned because i'm a queer anarchist in kentucky; it was only when i listened to the people around me that i supposedly disagree such that i learned we agree on almost everything, and that was when we began yo see each other's humanity. another quote from aramin: "we didn’t meet as friends, no, we meet as enemies. but now we are family. and we had to start by talking to each other." the recording of the talk i attended hasn't been made public yet, but i posted a bunch of quotes from it here [x]

#jumblr #anarchist #tsiyyonus definition #asks #anonymous

70 notes · View notes

urostakako · 6 months

Text

the act of western reporters/journalists/whatever hounding palestinians and people from other middle eastern countries about what they think an 'appropriate response' should be for the hamas attack is evil in and of itself. how can you demand this out of the people suffering? "an organization not representative of your people launched an attack on your oppressors, who in return amplified their acts of genocide (but we won't call it that) by a hundred. all of you call this inhumane, but can you tell us why this response was justified?" they don't expect a reasonable answer to a "reasonable question." the question they want to ask is "all of your people deserve to die. tell me why you agree." and when the responders start explaining the history to give context behind their answer, that is deemed irrelevant because that's not the answer anyone wants to hear. what people want to hear is "agree with me that you deserve to die like animals, and your deaths are humane."

but in a world where the question really is "what should an appropriate response be?" why don't you ask yourself the same question. for 75+ years thousands and thousands and thousands of palestinians have died. over 5000 palestinians are kept in israeli prisons, over a hundred of them children. israeli settlers and idf have raped palestinian women, beat the elderly, torched neighborhoods, killed children in cold blood, forced them out of their homes, stuck 2 million people in a concentration camp not big enough to even remotely call it a place to live, routinely starved and dehydrated them, denied them medical supplies and access to hospitals, bombed their hospitals, raided their places of worship, and all of this was BEFORE the hamas attack, so what is the proportionate response to this? what is the proportionate response to this genocide? if its not a genocide, what is it? justified? are none of these massacres or worthy of condemnation? is the hamas attack "proportional" to the murder and displacement of thousands upon thousands of palestinians?

why is your focus entirely on proportionality? why are you obsessed with an eye for an eye? i kill four of your people, so you kill eight of mine? if you are not willing to entertain that maybe the hamas attack was a long time coming, and maybe even justified, why are you then obsessed with dishing back what was served to you? is it something to be proud of that if group 1 rapes one of group 2's people, then group 2 must do the same? does that make sense? and i'm not saying non-violence is always the answer, but if you choose to push this narrative that every violence enacted against palestinians over the past 75 years was entirely justified, NORMAL even, then why are you obsessed with exactly how much violence by israel should be enacted again? how does that not go against your own shoddy principles?

and even if these assholes aren't privy to all the flaws in their questioning, shouldn't there be some sort of human decency in not asking the very people suffering genocide why their deaths are deserved and well-meant in the course of history? how can anyone call themself a journalist or a reporter in good faith when this is the kind of shit that you pull. it isn't just the settlers or the idf or the news outlets or the people who do jackshit who have blood on their hands, it is these people as well who force the sufferers to document their suffering and act like they are the morally righteous ones. and it's pure evil that makes it seem like an option to you to play the strings of palestinians' emotions for your sick sense of superiority

anyway. there is no such thing as a proportionate response if you're not going to acknowledge who is the aggressor here. and the truth never stays hidden. whether in an hour, a day, a month, a year, a decade, a century, a millenium, the truth will always come out and everyone who participated and everyone who did nothing will have to answer for the blood on their hands inevitably and undoubtably. as long as there is such a thing as the truth and as long as there are such things as lies, no one will ever forget what you people did to the people of palestine. no one will forget how you murdered and how you stood by and let it happen.

#palestine #ive seen one too many interviews of white reporters demanding journalists from gaza + neighboring countries #'what is proportionate?' and refuse to accept an answer. i hope you all kill yourselves.#all of you are complicit. i hope you live with the guilt and suffer for it for the rest of your disgusting lives #no one will forget the palestinians and no one will forget you. i hope you all know that and fear that #aricouldyounot

12 notes · View notes

sebthesnipe · 4 years

Text

The Dreamer by Whatwashernameagain an Analysis? Chapter 2! Part 3

All portions:

Chapter 1: Part 1 // Part 2 // Part 3 // Part 4

Chapter 2: Part 1 // Part 2 // Part 3 // Part 4

The Dreamer

@whatwashernameagain

As always, Spoilers under cut.

Also, I am currently sick so bear with me….

We left off with Logan’s first kill and the difference between The Utilitarianist’s vs. The Dreamer’s views. The thing is, The Dreamer isn’t his own hero, but rather the vision of a team with their own agenda. Still, Roman, despite the attempt to control him, has his own passions.

“Roman could barely be held back. The man who’d been killed, Richard Snyder, had owned the largest chemical production company in the world and had been blamed for the death of a large amount of people in Vietnam due to a herbicide that had leaked into the phreatic water. He’d also been a father of three girls and felt behind a grieving wife” (Whatwashernameagain).

This paragraph gives a bit of background into Logan’s first kill, the first indication that he is becoming too cold, too focused on his work that he is losing his humanity. Logan may not care for the individual as he works but taking a man’s life is something you don’t come back from. The fact that he has finally done so pushes him into an entirely new level of villainy. I think that Roman sees that. He may not know Logan on a personal level yet but as we learned in the first chapter Roman has a love and caring disposition for everyone whether it is the man responsible for countless deaths in Vietnam or a villain responsible for his death. He shows no remorse for Logan at this point but as a reader I think we realize that this is the first step Logan takes towards losing himself in his own darkness.

Eva goes on to talk about how he was upset about the deaths due to the chemical leak and how he grieved for them and their families. However, we also see his ignorant optimism that has become his trademark quite quickly.

“Accidents were a terrible thing and he was sure Mr. Snyder hadn’t meant for any of this to happen. People were good and cared about each other in his opinion. After the public blame the terrorist had put on his shoulders before – there was no other word for it – lynching the poor man, the media reacted to the crime in a manner that deeply shocked the sensitive young man. Instead of condemning the horrifying acts harshly, they discussed the accidents that had caused the unfortunate deaths in Vietnam and demanded consequences to avoid such accidents in the futures!” (Whatwashernameagain).

He convinces himself the Snyder never meant for any of the deaths to happen, which, for those of us who know how the real world works; we know that the more likely reality is that Snyder probably cut corners and didn’t care much that he ruined so many people’s lives and even paid to keep it quiet. Still, Roman states that he believed people were good and cared about each other at their core and maybe that is true for the individual; after all, that is how Roman sees people: individually. So… There is a lot I can say here… and when I say a lot, I mean a LOT. I will attempt to keep this section a bit brief, but I did want to touch on some philosophy and sociology here.

In 1995 a book by Howard Bloom called The Lucifer Principle was published (Bloom, Howard). For those of you who haven’t heard of it, it has nothing to do with religion. The Lucifer Principle poses the idea that good and evil, right and wrong, its all a construct of our need to fit everything into a box. Nature does not see things as good or evil. When a lion preys on a wounded animal it is just nature. When a hurricane levels a major city, we don’t view it as evil because it is apart of nature. When a lightening bolt causes a good portion of a forest to burn down it is nothing but a way to regrow. Yet, despite the fact that we are simply an over evolved species of animal, we hold ourselves to a higher standard. We view things as good or evil but there is no such thing in the natural world. (Keep in mind I am not stating an opinion, I am simple describing the principles of the book). The book explores that the social groups that we create as humans, not us as individuals, are more inclined to do things that we consider ‘evil’ when we have something to gain from it (Bloom, Howard). It argues that “evil is a by-product of nature’s strategies for creation and that it is woven into out most basic biological fabric” (Bloom, Howard). Violent competition is the center of the creation of the superorganism we consider society (Bloom, Howard). It is difficult to argue with this theory when you consider that we really only advance through war. The discovery of vitamin C, disease prevention, tourniquets, X-rays, blood transfusions, vaccines, lipoamides, penicillin, anaesthics, chemotherapy, antibotics, frozen blood products, antiseptics, Gatorade, the recognition of PTSD, discovery of cardia arrest, (weather) radar, walkie-talkies, night vision, duct tape, nuclear technology (including powerplants), Jet engines, digital photography, satellite navigation (GPS), sanitary napkins, Drones, microwaves, computes, superglue, jeeps, canned food, wristwatches, Epipens, the space program, ambulances and even the Internet and so much more have been the result of the wars we have waged throughout the centuries (Pocket-lint) (“Science Museum. Brought to Life: Exploring the History of Medicine”). There are very few things in this world that a social group (not an individual) has not built with greed in mind; whether it be wealth, land, or power, generally speaking there is usually an ulterior motive to man’s creativity. It is hard to argue that we do not strive on being inherently ‘evil’ when there is so much evidence against that.

Once again, I feel as if I need to reinforce a few things: 1. I am not speaking about individual people. I am talking about humanity as a whole. 2. This is not necessarily my belief. This is a concept written in a book that I have read and that has a very well researched scientific basis. So, before anyone drops a mean or horrid anon ask in my box (and proves my point) please try reading the book. You can learn a lot about the world and yourself as well. Now, back to the analysis:

I bring this up for a number of reasons. This argument reinforces Roman’s naivety. He sees humanity as inherently good (if there really is such thing as ‘good’ and ‘evil’); or rather he believes that ‘people’ are good which can both imply an individual person which is probably a correct statement, or ‘people’ as a whole which is perhaps leaning on the outside of ‘not good’ (We are killing our planet, endangering species, committing mass genocide, polluting outer space, and allowing people all around the world to starve, or ignore the fact that 40 years later we are still killing innocent people (including) children in Laos, Vietnam). It also brings into question The Utilitarianist, and the contrast between he and Roman once more. Logan sees the world in a similar light as The Lucifer Principle paints. In fact, I’d be surprised if Eva hadn’t read it. He is also one for intense scientific research which could lead him to the same conclusions as Bloom: That humanity is inherently what we consider ‘evil’ though evil itself is a construct we created and therefore he has no remorse for being labeled as such.

Am I getting too philosophical on you guys? Perhaps it would be best if I moved on….

“Of course, people needed to be protected, every life had value and had to be treasured, but to besmirch this victim’s life work, so soon after his execution – it left Roman angry and terrified for the state of the world he loved. He needed to stop this man, right now! He was strong enough to do it, why must they keep holding him back?” (Whatwashernameagain).

Once again, we see Roman’s compassion for every individual. We see him try and be understanding for those he disagrees with and for those he deems innocent. He is a man of honor after all and feels that the dead should be honored as well. It is almost as if he feels personally attacked, that Snyder’s name is being dragged through the mud after his death. Though it could be that Roman isn’t just thinking about the man, but his family as well; the shame they must feel as the media makes a mockery of their father, son, husband etc.

We also see a glimpse of his frustration at having to wait; of being forced to focus on glamour and speeches while others are moving in the shadows. He is getting his makeup done while Logan is murdering a man! In the next paragraph we see his frustration grow. He talks about his need to prevent such deeds and even pleads to be allowed to do something. But he is still bound by his need to win his father’s approval. He won’t go against him. He even attempts to justify it all but reminding himself that his team is “intelligent, professional experts hired specifically to make him the best possible hero he could be” (Whatwashernameagain). There is always a justification for those in denial… always a reason…

The next para is heartbreaking. We see him waking in pain after he has been cut open, we see him suffer from withdrawals after failed experimental drugs that corroded the lining of his throat and stomach… Pain that is probably unimaginable. Pain that he is probably enduring simply to be ‘useful’ to his father, to do good for the world… to gain the love he has always been denied and can not find it in him to give to himself. He will never be good enough, intelligent enough, useful enough for him to love himself… but maybe… just maybe he can be useful enough for someone to care for him…

Still, he states that none of the pain or experiments were quite as difficult as the waiting. C.S. Lewis said something once that comes to mind when I read about Roman’s mental struggle with waiting, compared to his physical anguish: “Mental pain is less dramatic than physical pain, but it is more common and also more hard to bear. The frequent attempt to conceal mental pain increases the burden: It is easier to say “My tooth is aching” than to say “My heart is broken.” Some might argue that Roman’s heart isn’t broken… but perhaps they are mistaken. Here sits a man who has never truly known love and now he has a chance to obtain that which he has never known… He has a chance to gain the love of his father and of the world and yet he is being denied. He is being turned down the chance to gain what he has always wanted and with each passing day his heart cracks and the fissures only grow… Sure he hasn’t been turned down by an individual that he fell in love with… but there are other types of heart break. Such as the kind you feel when you see your lifelong goal, the one you have worked for forever, fought for, hurt for, dangled in front of you and you can’t reach out to grab it… at least… not yet.

When he does finally reach his goal, we are presented with the contrast of the Pre-Dreamer Roman and the Post-Dreamer Roman:

“Finally, after more than a year of changing and preparing him, of whittling away at the inadequate shell that had been Roman Prince, the odd, weak disappointment of a son, a new man was revealed to the world. A man who was confident, brave and kind. A man who spoke clearly and showed the frightened society the way to a better world. A hero” (Whatwashernameagain).

In the next para we see Roman’s naivety once more, along with the lies that his team is no doubt feeding him. He vies the military factor that has been selling weapons to dictators as ‘producing military equipment for the protection of their brave soldiers overseas’; no doubt another picture painted by his father which Roman is more than happy to lap up. The next paragraph however, says a lot about Logan.

“It had been the day the terrorist had stepped from the shadows into the light of the cameras to blame his victims in person before they met their end. He’d exposed their alleged crimes against the helpless, suppressed minorities the weapons were used against – lies and exaggerations as his team had assured the young hero – and had finally shown himself to the world. Part of him, at least. Like a true villain, his body had been clad in a skin tight, black suit and his face had been masked from the light of truth and justice. He’d named himself the Utilitarianist” (Whatwashernameagain).

This is Logan’s first personal appearance. A bold move for his career. This is significant for a number of reasons; firstly, it shows yet another step Logan has taken towards his downfall (at least in his humanity). Logan has already killed a man, and obviously plans to do so again, but now he appears in person, obviously confident enough that there would be no one to stop him. Perhaps the power is going to his head. Logan is human after all and that much power tends to corrupt, even when people mean well.

“Yet, at his greatest moment of triumph, a hero rose to meet him. Stepping from the ashes of the detonated building, the Dreamer emerged, leading out the disoriented victims of the Utilitarianist’s terrible plan. Showing his handsome, young face to the camera, unmasked and alight with his passion for the defense of all that was right, he’s faced the other head on and finally gave the just and good Americans a hero to believe in. The time of fear and helplessness was over. He had risen from the dust of his nemesis’ destructive acts to beat him” (Whatwashernameagain).

I will get to Roman’s flashy entrance in a moment. For now, we are still on the subject of Logan. You see, Logan has shown that he has begun to lose himself and his humanity in his work. If he is not careful he will become the very type of person he works so hard to wipe from the Earth. Luckily, someone has come to oppose him, to pull him back from the edge. I have mentioned that Roman is both Logan’s Hope and Humanity and that is true here as well. Roman appears just in time to save what little of Logan’s humanity is left. Perhaps he is a bigger hero than either of them realize.

As for his entrance, the contrast between the two is obvious once more. The over dramatized appearance is nothing if not expected from Roman but fact that him being unmasked is brought to the readers attention while Logan hides behind is own is an indication of not only the good vs. evil dynamic that has been apparent throughout the story but also of Roman’s cockiness.

A battle ensues. The Utilitarianist is far more difficult to defeat than Roman had accounted for and narrowly escapes. Roman is left felling defeated as he considers it a failure. I feel as if this is a fantastic symbolization of the fact that good and evil are a balance. The Utilitarianist which represents Roman’s concept of evil and The Dreamer, representing the concept of good were fairly evenly matched. One didn’t over power the other it was a fair balance.

We see his caring side once more as he mentions his disappointment and what the world deserves. Though we also see the socially imposed concept of ‘masculinity’. “A hero must never show his inner struggles” (Whatwashernameagian). Eva always has a way of bringing out subtle issue inadvertently that astounds me. Society engrains in most men that it is not alright to show your emotions, that they must be contained. I suppose that in special cases such as first responders this is accurate. If you asked an officer or a nurse, or a medic, how they do what they do most would explain something similar to a concept I call ‘a switch’. When faced with a situation in which an officer knows it is best not to react or feel they flip an imaginary switch. This switch controls their emotions. The catch is, that in order for this switch to work properly they need a constant supply of either work or adrenaline; basically, anything that does not allow you to analyze the situation you are in. It is one of the that many police academy’s have such extensive training/drills; that way, you react in the proper manner without thinking. But I will tell you something they don’t tell you… When the day is over, and hours have pasted since they finished washing the blood from their hands or shoes… When their driving home and its quiet… or when their changing into their pajamas… Everything that they saw… Every mistake they made… every life they couldn’t save… Its going to hit and when it does… it hits hard. The switch doesn’t work forever, you see… Its on a timer and when that timer goes off it determines who is strong enough to make it and who isn’t because no body is able to pick up the pieces for you.

Eva is talented enough to paint the subtle switch into her writing though, and I mean no offense in this, I do not expect her to know the severity of what the suppression can do someone… especially someone as kind hearted as Roman. I must applaud her for addressing it however, even if she doesn’t realize she is doing it.

Luckily, Roman’s efforts were rewarded. The mention of the newspaper’s tones changing, interviews being planned for him (though he was instructed on what to say, bringing attention once again to the fact that he his nothing but a puppet at this point). He painted the picture of himself that he was meant to, that he had always wanted to be. His dreams were finally coming true. There was one catch… The dreams he had achieved were based on lies.

“Despite his wish to brag with his father’s great plans and the selfless efforts the other CEOs, lobbyists and republicans had invested, they asked him to never mention the Conglomerate that had created him and steered his actions. The public needed a legend to put their faith in now, they said. Not a bunch of old men bumbling about. Though he felt selfish when he claimed to be acting by himself with nothing but the help of volunteering patriots, he trusted their knowledge more than his own. Though the Dreamer was a great hero, Roman would not forget that he was just a young man trying to be good enough for his father’s love he’d failed to deserve before” (Whatwashernameagain).

Roman isn’t allowed to mention his father, probably because if Roman is discovered for doing these things for his father’s benefit his father can pin it all on him. Yet, once again Roman’s naivety and self-worthlessness is used against him. JFC people! All this boy wants is his Father’s love!!!! That’s it!!! Just give it to him!! Christ!

Roman and Logan face off for the next few months; good and evil dueling to no avail. Though it does mention that Logan does the majority of his crimes over the internet where Roman’s ‘brute force’ doesn’t work; further painting the image of The Dreamer that Logan paints: A dim witted glamour seeking brute… At least the image he wants the world to believe he sees. Roman comments about Logan’s rude evasiveness when it comes to his demands which brings a little light-hearted humor back into the story. It is also quite amusing seeing Roman realize that Logan views him as ‘a fly buzzing about his head’ and being outraged by it.

********

I was really hoping I would get a lot more done on this one. I was hoping I wouldn’t have to break the Chapter 2 analysis into more than four parts… There is still hope I guess… Anyways, I’m afraid this is where I need to end this portion… I apologize if this was too dark for you. I am glad I got to end it on a light-hearted note and hope to see you in part 4 (hopefully the last part of Chapter 2 analysis)! Good Night!

Bloom, Howard K. The Lucifer Principle: a Scientific Expedition into the Forces of History. Atlantic Monthly Press, 1997.

Pocket-lint. “28 Ways Military Tech Changed Our Lives.” Pocket, 31 May 2019, https://www.pocket-lint.com/gadgets/news/143526-how-military-tech-changed-our-lives.

“Science Museum. Brought to Life: Exploring the History of Medicine.” Medical Innovations and War, http://broughttolife.sciencemuseum.org.uk/broughttolife/themes/war/innovations.

Whatwashernameagain. “The Dreamer - Chapter 2.” Hello Guys Gals And Non Binary Friends, 8 Sept. 2019, https://whatwashernameagain.tumblr.com/post/189407228487/the-dreamer-chapter-2?is_related_post=1.

#the dreamer #villain!logan #hero!roman #sanders sides #logince #logan sanders #roman sanders #logan/roman #roman/logan #analysis #reaction #fanfiction #whatwashernameagain #sanderssides #sander sides #sandersides

18 notes · View notes

mikedonehey · 5 years

Text

When Pastors Walk Away (Don’t Freak Out)

I was on a phone interview this past week, and I was posed with the question, “How would you respond to this movement of prominent figures leaving the faith?” My eyebrows raised. I took a slow sip of my coffee. “Movement?” I asked.

“Yes.” She laughed nervously. “There’s a real movement away from the faith right now, and we need to know how to contend with it.”

I didn’t answer. I took another sip of my coffee. The silence hung thick like the steam dancing in the sunlight rising from my cup. I let it linger.

“I’m pretty sure it’s just two guys,” I finally said. “I don’t mean any disrespect, but I don’t know if I’d call that a movement.”

But some would. When high profile pastors dramatically change what they believe about God, for some, it can feel like all the covers being ripped off. Cozy to shivering in one fell swoop. Betrayed. Disillusioned. It’s difficult to deal with the cold, when you feel like these were the same people who had just helped tucked you into your faith the night before.

So how do we respond? What do we say? Let me start with one of my all-time favorite over-looked Scriptures.

“And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth,” 2 Timothy 2:24-25

Alright. Let’s break this down for a minute. If you’re going to speak up for God, if you “correct opponents,” Paul tells Timothy, you must not be doing so from a quarrelsome place. Ouch. Im going to need to sit with that for a moment. How much of my outspoken zeal for correction is really just my attempt to leverage a moment for my own personal influence?

I have to admit. Whenever something of controversy arises, I’ve had to make a practice of waiting a few days longer than I think I should to speak up. Too many times, I cared a lot more about jumping on an opportunity to gain followers who agree and enforce my position than I have about actually hearing from and loving the person I’m disagreeing with. The Scripture warns against this compulsion. We don’t correct just because we like the attention. We don’t speak up, because we like being right. We correct, because we deeply care about the person. Let’s go on.

You must be kind TO EVERYONE. Who do I need to be kind to? Oh right. Everyone.

Next? Be able to teach.

Whoof. I believe we teach best when we speak from what we deeply know. Teachers at university typically teach from their area of expertise. If you’re a biology professor you probably won’t be giving the Shakespeare exam. That’s worth noting. There are some arguments that are above my pay grade. If so, maybe I should let someone else handle it.

What else?

Patiently endure evil.

Ooookaaay.

In today’s knee jerk defamatory culture, that bit is laughable. Endure evil. And do it patiently. I’ll be the first to say I don’t like evil, I don’t like enduring it, and I especially don’t like doing it patiently.

Now here’s the last bit, and I believe it’s the kicker. When you correct someone, do so with GENTLESNESS. We could just camp out there. But it gets better. Then perhaps...PERHAPS! (I love that word there.) Perhaps God will change them.

Ok Let’s recap.

Not quarrelsome.

Kind to everyone.

Able to teach what I’m talking about.

Endure evil.

Be patient.

Correct gently.

Let God do it.

This past week, two well-known Christians spoke of changes in their personal beliefs. One made a public declaration. The other, a bit of a public Inquiry. One, an author and pastor, the other, a worship facilitator. I’ll call him a worship feeder. (I hesitate to use the word “leader.” Paul didn’t like it either. (See I Corinthians 3 & 4) They both seem to be walking away from their personal faith in Jesus, and the after math has been nothing short of incredible. “What’s wrong with today’s Christians?!?” Some bemoaned. “This is why liberals cannot be trusted!” Others lamented.

I’ve sat back pondering.

This much, that two men would come to a place in their faith where they question everything they believe in, should not come as a great shock. Believing in Jesus is hard. It’s really hard. Genocide, homicide, child slavery, sickness, famine, war, death, the list goes on. The evidence against the existence of a good God is at least reasonable if not justifiable. ( I think even Jesus Himself called faith in Him impossible with man. All things are possible with God, but with man, impossible. Right? As impossible as a camel through a needle) It’s no wonder Paul says “They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience,” in 1 Timothy 3:9.

Mystery.

Let’s not breeze over that word.

It’s also worth mentioning that in Romans 11 Paul speaks of God’s children being grafted in to “Israel.” Remember that Israel means “wrestles with God.” So to be in God’s kingdom, means, among other things, that you’ve been invited into a divine wrestling match with Him. Incredible. That’s how close He wants us. All our questions, all our doubts. All our fascination and fears. He isn’t after the regurgitation of dogma, He’s after our sweat and our tears. He wants us. And He wants the real us; even the struggling parts of us. Maybe especially those parts. He wants us close. He’s after intimacy with us, more than a perfect test score from us.

I suppose this is why Jesus tells the Pharisees in John chapter 5. “You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.”

John 5:39,40

Re-read those words if you need to.

Jesus’ warning is nothing short of astonishing. Here He is, Telling the Religious elite that having all the answers won’t get you where you need to be. They’re not enough. All those Scriptures they had memorized were not the end in and of themselves, but merely sign posts pointing to an encounter with Him. He is the end goal. He is so much more than a belief system.

The announcement though, sent shock waves through Christendom this past week. It seemed unthinkable to many that those who have tasted of the heavenly gifts and the sweetness of the Spirit, could walk away. I am certainly in that camp. But that’s it. I don’t think the internet went ablaze, because God’s people were aching for these guys to sense His sweetness. I think people lost their nerve, because they felt two of their starters were defecting to the other team. Be honest with yourself here. It’s a subtle but crucial distinction.

Jesus told us His kingdom is not like the ones this world constructs. His kingdom is not a witch hunt. It’s not a club. It’s something more like an ever present invitation. “The Spirit and the Bride say “Come!” not, “Good riddance, we didn’t need you anyway.” So we needn’t obsess over who’s in and who’s out. We treat everyone like they’re in, until they finally believe they are. It’s a kingdom where we freely give ourselves away, not one where we lock the gates with a secret handshake required to get in. All that is required is Jesus, so may we never make it harder to get in than He did.

He also said the kingdom is like a farmer throwing some seeds around. Mustard seeds perhaps. The plants grow. They wither. Some get trampled on, some strangled. Some thrive to “impossible” heights. Some are eaten by the birds. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to be a bird swallowing up seeds off the fallow ground. I want to be a gardener, watering and whispering to the soil. However troublesome a plant looks, I want to be in the business of reviving. Let God do the pruning.

I read some articles and blog posts. I read some of the comments. I kind of wish I hadn’t. But as an author and a bit of a worship artist myself, the arguments felt pretty close to home. I read on. Some said they were ashamed. Others said they were headed straight to Hell. Some cheered their courage. While some said it’s fine to walk away from their faith, provided they don’t dare urge others to come with them. I would like to remark on that thought for a second. Let’s offer some grace here folks. I’m pretty sure these guys were on stage most of their adult life. Every week they were making a living getting people to agree with where they were coming from. They sang and talked about their faith like it was their job, because It was. It only makes sense then, that they would continue in that practice while going through a period of deconstruction. You can’t really fault a guy for taking people along his faith journey if that’s what he’s been doing for two decades and getting paid for it. Now look, I’m not making a case that it doesn’t matter what you believe. As Tozer said, “What comes into our minds when we think about God is the most important thing about us.” Jesus said the work of God is “To believe in the One He has sent.” God is definitely into reconstruction. I think what I’m arguing is for Christians to believe in God more.

Perhaps.

Perhaps God will grant them repentance.

What Im arguing for is that we Christians would quit freaking out.

Quit. Freaking. Out.

Quit freaking out on believers who turn unbeliever. Quit freaking out on unbeliever turned believer in something else.

Paul says we have an insane advantage.

“God may perhaps grant them repentance.”

The best part of speaking on behalf of God is that God can take care of Himself. He isn’t rattled. He isn’t unsettled. He knows we are just dust. (Psalm 103) And the arguments? I think it’s safe to say He’s heard them all before. I get to speak up for a God who is already speaking to people’s hearts.

What about everyone else? What about the young impressionable minds who might be led astray? Well...I hope they don’t. I hope they aren’t. Led astray that is.

But there’s two sides to that.

I’m pretty sure we won’t win young believers to “our side” by crucifying our own in front of them. Yes, it’s my job and privilege to speak the truth, but it’s also my job to teach my daughters, for instance, how to bless people who don’t agree with them. I want my daughters to grow up embracing the truths I believe but also gently loving those who don’t embrace our truth as THE truth. If I’m scared my kids will be led astray to unbelief, should I also not be considering the dangers of winning my children over to Phariseeism? That’s not a real word but hopefully you get my drift. Again, I correct with GENTLENESS. I’m still convinced, after all my years on the planet, most people aren’t won to Jesus because of an impressive argument. And most don’t leave the church, because of a theory. More often than not, it’s the wounds from the insiders that cause them to run out the doors of the church and not look back.

I’ve heard it said over and over growing up that we (The Christian church) do not place our hope in religion alone, but in an actual living breathing relationship with God. Ok. Then tell me this.

If one of my wife’s friends and her have a falling out, does that mean I should question whether I’m still in relationship with my wife? Jesus does call us His bride after all, so I don’t think it’s a completely absurd comparison. No. I am so secure with what I have with my wife, I don’t freak out when others go through troubles connecting with her. I truly hope they work things out and will pray to that end. But I’m not going on Facebook to warn them of their disconnection. I trust God’s ability to right the relationship. I guess what I’m saying is, the more threatened you are when someone else is having a problem with God, maybe the less sure you are in your relationship with Him. If your relationship is solid, then the less worked up you’re going to get. It’s a crude analogy for sure but my point is this.

Don’t freak out.

Let people wrestle.

Speak gently.

Perhaps God.

Isaiah puts it so poignantly:

“a bruised reed he will not break, and a faintly burning wick he will not quench; he will faithfully bring forth justice.” Isaiah 42:3

My friend Gabby commented, “if your faith can’t bend it’ll break.”

Perfectly stated.

Let’s not break the bruised reeds among us. Let’s not make it our job to quench the flickering flames of faith against the harsh winds of life. God doesn’t either.

And though we may not applaud others’ belief system or the route they’re taking, we can at least applaud their attempt to be honest with themselves and others. The Jesus I’ve come to know, I’m sure of this much, none of us get closer to Him by wearing a mask. Removing the pretense is the first step toward Him. Even if we’re taking the long way around.

57 notes · View notes

gastricpierrot · 4 years

Text

Title: Heartbeat

Series: Promare

Pairing: GaloLio

Rating: T

Summary:

Lio turns himself in after the final battle, the start of a new life he must get used to.

This is a story of how Lio Fotia navigates through the days that follow, learns that support comes in more forms than he’s ever familiar with, and deals with his alarmingly developing feelings for Galo Thymos.

Also on AO3

[Prologue][Chapter 1]

[Chapter 2]

Immediate action is taken after Lio threatened the bastard, which he thinks is pretty ironic considering how long he had had to put up with his antics.

At the very least, Lio doesn’t seem to be the one judged as the problem, since he gets to stay in his usual cell while the bastard gets assigned to another wing in the building where they are pretty much guaranteed to never cross paths again. Guess sexual harassment remains a worse offense than petty bullying.

Lio is surprised, though, to find out how many people in his hallway approves of what he’s caused. On the morning of the announcement itself, Lio has about three inmates catching his gaze and giving him understanding nods and smiles and even some thumbs up. It’s the first time Lio’s felt any sort of solidarity with the other inmates, and he’s not sure if that’s a good thing. He doesn’t want to judge anyone at this point. They’ve all got their own reasons why they’re there.

With Bastard out of the way, Lio finally attains ultimate peace in his inmate life. No one to bother him in hours of the morning when he’s still barely feeling human, no one to cause him to miss meals and starve through the nights. And most importantly, no one to put their filthy hands on him.

The only shame is that Lio really would have loved to break the bastard’s fingers, given the chance, but he digresses. There are perhaps other methods of anger management.

So time passes, as it always does. Lio works, learns and grows. His body eventually stops aching as much after a day of construction work. His jumpsuits start fitting a little better, his pants no longer needing to be rolled up as many times around his ankles. His hair has grown enough to go past his shoulders on a few occasions, and he’s been requesting to cut it short after realizing how difficult it is to maintain lengthier hair in a facility that provides the barest of necessities. The fanciest things Lio has seen to date are the scented hand soap provided in the washrooms near the cafeteria.

Lio admits that he does make the effort to go all the way there to use them when he can. Even the sterile scent of lemon and lime is better than the moldy, sour stench of an insufficiently ventilated building. Just more insignificant things to appreciate, just more things to get used to.

And a year and a half after the battle that led to the final Promare Blaze, Lio finds himself watching the news report on Kray Foresight’s official imprisonment.

It had taken time to finalize his sentence mostly because of his prominent position as the Governor. Lio doesn’t understand all the details himself, but it apparently takes a ton of processes to go through when the head of state is the one who’s being convicted. Lio hears that Kray had been mostly cooperative, though, and that he’d easily admitted to the charges pressed against him.

Lio hated—and still hates—Kray Foresight for all he’s done to his people. He's subjected them to human experimentation, encouraged their oppression, and even attempted genocide of the Burnish by using them as fuel for the Parnassus. Lio had, with all his being, wanted to rip him apart with his own two hands. Kray had repeatedly tried to take away everyone and everything that mattered to him. Lio can never forgive him, never wants to forgive him.

Which is why he doesn’t understand how empty he feels while watching the segment covering Kray’s imprisonment on television. There’s no satisfaction, no gratification despite seeing how karma has finally passed her judgement. Perhaps part of him wants Kray to received worse punishment than simply going to jail. He had killed, had lied and manipulated his way to the top. He deserves more than just being locked up somewhere for the rest of his life.

Galo visits the day after the news broke.

He's much more sullen than usual, which isn’t something unexpected. Lio knows how much Galo had idolized the man, how he’d lived a lie throughout his most formative years. He can’t imagine how it feels like to discover that your hero had actually been the one who’d orphaned you, that the person you admired the most in the world and want most to be proud of you—to turn out so sick and deluded. Even Lio had felt a little bad when he shoved the truth into his face back then. It definitely couldn’t have been something easy to accept.

Galo is kind; in that foolish, naïve, yet straightforward way of his. He has so much heart to give, and therefore also so much to break.

“You okay?” Lio can’t help but ask when Galo trails off from a bit of small talk he’d managed to muster. Galo glances at him, and laughs nervously.

“Yeah,” he says, so unconvincingly that he shouldn’t even have bothered. “Yeah, I’m good.”

Lio chews on his lip, desperately grasping for a change of topic. But what? What would be a good one that wouldn’t sound too awkward? This is too sudden. If only Galo could’ve told him in advance that he’s visiting then maybe he could’ve had some time to brainstorm—

“Lio.” This time, the call of his name is followed by a huff with that sounds like genuine amusement. “You look like you’re having trouble pooping.”

“Well maybe I am? Mind your own business,” Lio snaps, mostly out of instinct and a bit out of panic the moment his thoughts dissipate. They stare at each other for a few seconds, before one of them cracks and they mutually dissolve into a string of chuckles. The atmosphere finally lightens slightly.

“It’s okay, Lio,” Galo assures once more, his shoulders losing a bit of tension in them. “I really am fine.”

Lio studies his face, trying to read this expression he’s wearing that he’s so unfamiliar with. Even Galo, with his endless passion and energy and brilliance, has this side to him.

“I’m sorry you had to experience everything you did because of him,” Lio offers, holding Galo’s gaze. “You don’t deserve what he put you through.”

“O-Oh.” Galo seems taken aback—slightly embarrassed, even. He breaks eye contact first, reaching to knead his fingers against his nape. “Thanks? Though really, it’s nothing compared to what he’s done to the Burnish and—”

“Galo.” Lio stops him, working to stamp down the sudden rise of anger in his chest. He doesn’t like where this is going. He continues despite Galo’s refusal to meet his eyes. “It’s not something that can be compared. You still feel what you feel. Your emotions are not any less valid.”

“I just—” Galo cuts himself off with a sigh, frowning as he stumbles for words. Lio wonders if they should stop this conversation, if maybe Galo really isn’t prepared to talk about this just yet after all. But Galo speaks again before he can say anything about it, voice even softer than before. “I just don’t know if I have the right to feel this way.”

Lio frowns. “Galo—”

“You don’t understand, Lio,” Galo barrels on before Lio can interject. He seems to be in so much conflict with himself, torn even just trying to articulate it. “I know he’s done many horrible things; I’ve seen it with my own eyes. He's a bastard who would do anything for the sake of money and glory. And yet I...” he digs his nails into the skin of his neck, “I still catch myself hoping that isn’t all to it. That all his lies and actions had a good reason behind them. That deep down, he’d truly wanted to save the human race.”

The bitter little laugh he then lets out brings an ache to Lio’s chest.

“I really am an idiot, aren’t I?”

Lio doesn’t respond immediately. He knows he can’t, not when this topic is so complicated and delicate to Galo. As he thinks about it, Lio realizes that he and Kray Foresight really aren’t that much different in some regard. They both did bad things for a cause they thought was good.

But he also knows that good reasons don’t always justify bad actions.

“You’re an idiot for beating yourself up over something you have no control over, yes.”

Galo winces, but Lio isn’t done. “Again, what you feel is valid despite how wrong you may think it is. But I believe that it’s how you react to your emotions that matters more. What do you intend to do about them, Galo? Will you just sit around and mope forever? Or will you continue doing what you’re best at and prove that he doesn’t have control over you even now?”

More contemplative silence. But this time, Galo finally looks at him again.

“You know that’s not even a question,” he protests, and Lio hopes he’s right to think that he looks a little more relieved than before. Galo takes a deep breath, and puffs out his chest for the first time that afternoon. “My soul must burn on, no matter what happens. I’ll have to work even harder at helping everyone who’s been affected.”

“That’s the Galo I know,” Lio approves, heart lifting at the sight of him being a bit of his usual self again. It truly takes moments like these to remind him to appreciate the cheer and energy Galo normally radiates around him despite what he’s been going through internally.

“Thanks, Lio. For listening,” Galo says, then moving to stand up when he sees the guard outside getting ready to kick him out once again. Lio crosses his arms and leans back against his chair.

“It’s the least I can do,” he smiles, but he doesn’t seem to be able to keep it up very long. He quickly speaks again before Galo can notice it. “But really, Galo. You must remember to take care of yourself, too.”

“I’m not too worried about that, honestly,” Galo admits, “I’ve got you to help me with that.”

Lio blinks. “Galo, I don’t know if you realize, but I’m still in detention and I’m not the most accessible person at the moment.”

“Yeah, but even just a short time with you like this make me feel a whole ton better!” Galo insists, and Lio finds that he can seriously never argue with him for long.

“You really are a weird one,” is what he settles with, which earns him an impish grin from Galo. “Now go, idiot. I’ll see you tomorrow.”

xXx

Tomorrows. Lio eventually runs out of tomorrows to spend in the detention center.

His sentence lasts five years. It seems short compared to the damage he’s done, but it’s something that’s been desperately fought for by the people who cares for him.

The night before his release, Lio lies awake trying to sort out what exactly he’s feeling. There’s excitement, of course. He can’t wait to reunite with his friends, catch up with all that has been going on, ease back into the comfort of their companionship. Feel like he’s actually part of something again. It’s great that he’s been able to somewhat keep up with the general idea of what’s going on with them through media reports, but it’s also brought with it an inevitable sense of separation. Out there, life moves on without him. While the others struggle back on their feet, Lio has been coddled in the detention center.

He's... suddenly not quite sure how he’d be able to face them. Does he really have the right to when he’s been having the privilege of staying under stable shelter and not having to worry about the daunting uncertainties of the near future for the past few years? Can he really say that he’s served his punishment when he’s probably been having it easier than many of the former Burnish who have been trying their hardest to assimilate back into a society that once saw them as nothing but monsters and terrorists?

These thoughts aren’t something new. His brain, in fact, would always steer this direction whenever it occurs to him how at peace he’s feeling despite being in detention. Lio has only ever been running away instead of facing them, convincing himself that there’s nothing he can do about it while he’s still there. Even if he mulls over it for days and months and even years, what is done is done. He can no longer change the fact that he is where he is. He's come too far to start regretting.

But now there’s no other option but to face them, no excuses left for him to escape. And Lio is just as lost as ever.

Morning still comes; it always does. Lio listens as the alarms blare to signal the start of the day for the other inmates, as cell doors slide open and groggy yawns and groans fill the hallway along with the shuffle of feet. He listens until there’s nothing left to listen to but his own breathing and heartbeat in his ears.

Lio later has his breakfast brought straight to his cell by an expressionless guard. Even though he’s scheduled to be released in literally a few hours, he isn’t allowed to leave the room. The door will only unlock when it’s time for him to meet the head warden at the office.

Lio doesn’t want to bother thinking too much into it, so he doesn’t. He's making enough effort just trying to swallow and stomach the usual sandwiches and milk, both made even blander by his nerves. He ends up pacing around his cell until he hears the lock disabling, and even then he catches himself trying to stall for time by folding his blanket repeatedly because “the corners don’t perfectly align”.

He's being extremely ridiculous. He knows. He’s going to be free again, for God’s sake! He's not so much of a coward that he’d rather stay in a prison equivalent than face the reality he’s been mostly shielded from all these years.

Except maybe he is. A little bit. Quite a little bit.

Lio’s asked to sign some documents at the office, then he’s reminded that he’s still on probation for another year after he’s released. Although its recording functions will be permanently disabled, his movements can still be tracked by the chip in his ankle. Lio’s later given a set of plain civilian clothes which he changes into on the spot, as well as his own identification card once the rest of the briefing is out of the way.

And then with absolutely no ceremony at all, he’s dismissed.

Lio walks towards the detention center gates. Through them, with no one running up to stop him. It’s been five years since he has the right to go wherever he wanted. It hasn’t quite sunk in, what’s happening. But he’s sure it will, eventually. Eventually.

He's there of course. Just as he’s always been, always waiting for him from afar. It may be arrogant of Lio to never have even doubted it.

Galo’s standing close to his parked bike, squinting at his cellphone under the late morning sun. He looks up when Lio calls out to him, and in that moment, the weight in Lio’s chest lifts enough for him to breathe.

And with that, the first day of Lio’s next new life begins with a wave and a bright call of his name from Galo Thymos.

#promare #lio fotia #galo thymos #galolio #liogalo #mmmmmmmm still cant say im 100% satisfied with how this turned out but i really dont know what else to do about it hhh #like i said on ao3 the thing about having lio not hecking shit up in prison #is that theres really nothing much more i can go for?#so onto the happier and sappier parts of the fic we go!!!#that im honestly dying to write ;kfjadjkf #fanfiction

10 notes · View notes

myfriendpokey · 5 years

Text

subterranean modern

1. Modernism as a concern with being modern.

Which on the face of it is a weird and trivial thing to be concerned about. Who cares? Is the modern good, bad, does it have any specific qualities or objectives whatsoever? If it does, then why not address yourself to those goals directly, rather than having to fret about the merely temporal? The neoclassical and romantic don't strictly speaking have to worry about being modern, they could always be justified on the basis of the eternal human verities, like such-and-such, or the other thing. The postmodern doesn't need to worry about being modern as "modernity" is something which has already happened, and which is inescapable, which is why we can safely afford to engage in pastiche. So what was the moment in between - when art could neither justify itself as something safely outside of history nor as something already contained within one which had already occured? A period of art trying to deal directly with historicism itself?

To be anxious to be modern is to see your life, beliefs, status and role in the context of a history where any of these things could abruptly or violently be changed by forces out of your control - it involves a sharp awareness of how poorly "history" will treat or has always treated those deemed to have been left behind. And it's an anxiety with no necessarily fixed political expression, which helps to explain why modernism itself could be so various (and sometimes dubious) in this regard. The Martian attack in War Of The Worlds is famously an extrapolation of the West's own colonial history, turned back on itself: now we are the victims of genocidal, technologically accomplished marauders. But if this is a critique of the colonial mind it's also a kind of paranoid extension of it, imagining faceless alien hordes just waiting to swamp europe if we ever get lax or fall behind in the arms race: the common cold which eventually undermines and destroys the space invaders also mirrors western anxieties about foreign contamination (as syphilis had historically been viewed), or miscegenation. The awareness that a change in "history" could mean death or diaspora might just lead to trying to punch first and most brutally in the name of preserving some advantage, or trying to hold on to your spoils another few generations – but it could also mean trying to find another way of thinking, acting, writing which would break out of the cycle itself.

Literary modernism drew on and tried to position itself within a range of competing historicisms (Marx, Freud, Spengler, Carlyle, Darwin, etc) and in the process tried creating new ones. The results are in general not inspiring: Yeats’s gyres and cycles; Shaw’s mysterious “life force”; Joyce’s Vico-inspired circular history; Ezra Pound’s doggedly stupid efforts to construct a new theory of fascist political economy by crossing John Adams with dynastic China. But I think we also have to see these as scaffolding, to some extent, around a larger project: which is the idea of art as an intervention in history, an apparition of the future (or the uncanny past) which would burst in on the present with a set of new demands for everyday life. We currently live in an economic system in which the blood of the present is continuously drained to artificially prolong a possible, impossible future: one which attempts to pre-emptively shut any political act which would infringe on the right of rentiers to generate constantly increasing returns on their investments until the heat death of the universe. The avant-garde is the reverse – something which would take its energy from the future in order to extend the range of action in the present. When the neoclassical emphasis on the merely aesthetic (or the merely moral, the improving) palls into kitsch, when the postmodern emphasis on “challenging narratives” becomes a purely ritual form of defusing tensions so that business can go on as usual, the concept of the modern as an unsettled question still has capacity to startle.

2. Are videogames modern?

Emilie Reed has already explored this question from the perspective of visual modernism. But i think if we ask it using the definition that I started out with earlier in this post, the answer has to be: no, absolutely not. Videogames aren't anxious about modernity, not because they're so formally advanced (the whole videogame industry is largely an anachronism) but because they never had a sense of history to begin with. History in videogames is at most the history of the stylistic signifiers of videogames themselves - from 8bit to 16bit and so forth - but even then, there's no real sense of that transition being historical in nature, in being linked to some specific change in how people lived or worked or thought about their lives.

To some extent this is because videogames emerged and were propogated across a strangely uniform historical moment – the moment of neoliberalism, from the mid-70s to present, of a supposedly vindicated free market capitalism re-emerging throughout globalized economies worldwide. Videogames are up there with the IMF in terms of historical signs that you're living in this state of affairs: luxury commodities, consumer-grade electronic toys which take advantage of a busy tech sector, cheap manufacturing and shipping, and of course a progressive slackening of regulations around marketing to children. Videogames mean leisure as well as novelty - every videogame is an excess, a kind of portent of the easy abundance and constant progress that the market had to offer. They emerged without anybody much ever wanting them to, part and parcel of the range of spontaneously occuring new conveniences and devices that accompany consumer society.Twenty years too late, they nevertheless would have fit right into the famous “kitchen debates” of the 1950s, in which a model house filled with brand new appliances and recreational devices acted as showcase for a way of life that “anyone in America could afford” (start saving those pennies!!)

[The history of Atari is an interesting time capsule of videogames as aimless luxury doohickey rather than anything as essentialist as a “medium”. Atari’s other products from this time included a sort of proto-winamp skin, a music visualizer that plugged into a tv to display a limited range of soothing animations. It cost $170, which i believe would be over $600 in 2019 dollars – shades of the Oculus Rift, but also an interesting indication of the kind of commodity Atari thought they were making in general]

Videogames are “futuristic” but it’s in a sort of vague, unwilled way – nobody asked for these things to be invented. People behind the scenes were certainly struggling to produce and advance on them but the public representation is, as the Housers say, that videogames are made by elves. The famous “end of history” was still a few years off, but the sort of passive, ambient futuricity of videogames were part of the pitch, part of the idea that if history hadn’t yet ENDED it could at least be something that happened far enough away that you never felt the tremors.

Why is videogame culture so hospitable to the far right?

Postmodernism is haunted by the notion of conspiracy, the idea that history lingers on in some subterranean way, continuing to exert a baleful influence upon the present; officially denied, but still working behind the scenes, a secret society of postal workers here, an albino papist assassin there... so perhaps it’s not surprising that something of the same paranoia would hang around videogames, or some of the specific targets it would end up revolving around. One weird thing is that the people paranoid about keeping politics out of the format never seem to be all that vocal when it’s, say, the US military working with these companies for explicit propaganda purposes, or weapon manufacturers looking for free advertising, or large companies involved with weird shady review practices, etc.... but it also makes sense when we consider that these things, the military, industry, big tech, are what have always supported the supposedly ahistorical bubble that videogames exist within. If the US army does it, it can’t be political – because that army is exactly why we’ve been able to keep a certain form of “politics” at arm’s length.

If fascists find a home within these circles it’s partly because fascism is itself anti-political, or at least anti- the discursive and constructed nature of the political, anti-having to be political. It addresses itself instead to the inchoate realm of pre-existing essences and “natural”, i.e. historically unexamined, identities, posited as seperate from and superior to the ebb and flow of any given discourse. Which in fact is not dissimilar to how videogames have also presented themselves, and the affluent 1970s american middle class leisure patterns that they continue to preserve in aspic through their design assumptions although they’ve dissolved nearly everywhere else. To talk about the specific political meanings implied by such-and-such mechanics is not wrong per se but i think it does miss a broader picture: these things were sold, not as an artform or a medium of communication to begin with, but as the simple birthright of those lucky enough to have been included in the winner’s circle of 20th century globalization. And insofar as the gruesome escalating culture war around these objects is not really about them but about that birthright, about the right to not have to think about these things or what they cost or how they’re made or what they even really do, they will retain some character of the horrible idiot Boy’s Adventure rhetoric of fascist thought – traitors within, invaders without, take back what’s ours etc.

It’s not like modernism proper was lacking in antisemites, misogynists, imperialists, fascists of every stripe. Although the real connection between the two has tended to be overemphasised: it doesn’t include, say, the painters exhibited as “degenerate art” under the nazis, or murdered jewish artists like Bruno Schulz, or the feminists, socialists, anarchists, homosexuals, etc etc (and even the most ignominous cases like that of the futurists don’t feel quite conclusive, unless you think Mussolini really was keen on abstract sound poems as the new and vigorous art of the future). But maybe the gruesomeness of that list is the point: everything bad about modernism is already here. We have the weird cultish adoration of a strictly pro forma version of “difficulty”, we have the idiot jingoism and “provocative” chauvinism, we have lots of dumb schlock about saving western civilisation and masculinity and etc. Like the scrapmetal cars in Mad Max all-new unified theories of history are or have already been constructed from the flotsam, junk science and vague prejudice of the previous century. At a point where gamer cults are watching youtube explainers of Carl Jung while drinking brain-enhancing nutrient paste i think we have officially lost the right to make fun of W.B. Yeats for hanging out with Rosicrucians and injecting ape glands into his scrotum to restore male vigour. It was good while it lasted.

But given that we’re here already, is there anything worth taking from modernism the first go round? I can think of a few different things. The internationalist qualities of the artist’s magazine and manifesto, both cheap and portable forms which could easily be adopted or changed, which served as hubs for local action and also as ways to exchange findings and ideas with other groups doing the same. Compare this to videogames where “local scenes” surely do exist but for the most part do so as ancillaries to a generic industry pipeline, making games for the same carefully featureless, anglocentric audience that this entails. Relatedly, how central translation was to modernism, not just as a way to introduce more works to the existing market but as a form of creative estrangement and of getting out of a limited market-based parochialism – a way to engage not just with singular decontextualised works but also with criticism, theory, arguments. Given how much more capitalised even alternative videogames still seem to be than alt comics, literature, etc, it’d be nice if we could achieve at least parity with those forms.

I could also point towards the modernist interest in material and the new working methods this opened up – the interest in what mass production could mean and what new relations to art it could entail – attempts to create new forms of audience, of public and public speech, and to imagine forms of popular art which didn’t necessarily abide by the gloopy poptimist ethos of the popular always equalling the profitable always equalling the ubiquitous (there were many false starts, but i believe poptimism finally died forever with the advent of the funko pop). And I could also point at the interest in combining the critical and the aesthetic – in the argument that style is itself a combination of the critical and the aesthetic, is also a way of thinking about history, rather than just being what gets swapped in over the programmer art when it’s time to show a build, or treated as the meaningless expression of some changeless pre-existing taste. Is taste changeless? Or to what extent? What does this mean for forms of public speech, like art, which themselves exist within the constraints of taste? Unfortunately, we will probably not be helped in our thinking on these questions if we only ever write about Red Dead Redemption 2.

***

Part of the reason videogames have tried pointing themselves away from the modern is to try to establish their own lasting importance; instead of a provisional tangle of different incongruous traditions and materials designed to fit a peculiar historical or economic context, these things are a medium, which is imagined as a sort of mysterious Stargate portal onto the realms of Systems or Empathy or Play or whatever other Panglossian catch-all helps get you some of that californian venture capital, or possibly a book deal. But part of the consequence has been a stunted dogshit format where art is downgraded for being anything other than an advertisement for itself and which acts as a haven for fascists looking to also naturalise their tiny bubble of seigneurial rights away from any consequence or critique. Videogames might not be modern but by now they’re part of our image of what modernity looks like, and as that modernity continues revealing itself to be frayed, collapsing, incoherent or wildly unsustainable these things will like it or not become another part of that stock heap of broken images pulled from at random to build the futures that you may or may not ever want to live in. We can start thinking about the past as a way to find alternatives within it; or we can outselves become that past, and have our bones incorporated into the deathmobiles of the new age. History is back baby! it’s still a sewer!! awooo!!! Get ready to die historicist, on the fury road!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Leax63ullPE

[images: Modernism(1995), World History Quiz, My First Amazing History Explorer, Smart Mouse for Sega Megadrive]

#gamecrit #modernism #art

34 notes · View notes

phroyd · 5 years

Link

A Little Late, but, ... whatever! - Phroyd

There is this rare thing that will happen in the universe on June 19, when Mercury and Mars oppose Pluto on the same day. According to VICE senior astrologer Annabel Gat, this means we’ll be susceptible to a lot of fighting, power struggles, and generally catastrophic energy—and it could be the worst so far this year, if we're not prepared.

“There are going to be lots of fights breaking out, huge egos, jealousy. It’s going to be all the treacherous drama in Game of Thrones, multiplied by 20. Just imagine everything is extremely confrontational,” Gat says. “Mercury rules the mind and communication, and it’s all about negotiating. Mars is all about taking action, and it’s also the planet of war. Pluto can do both those things to an even higher degree...It’s an overwhelming energy.” In other words: If Mars is a fist-to-fist bar fight, Pluto is the astrological equivalent of nuclear warfare.

Adding to that, emotions have been building through last week and into the full moon Monday: hopes have been dashed, and people have been paranoid or too trusting, she says. Jupiter’s square to Neptune, compounded by Mercury opposing Saturn, brought heaps of rejection and gloomy energy on Sunday. June 19 brings a critical climax with “the moon in Capricorn opposing Mars and Mercury and meeting with Pluto, making emotions especially heightened.”

Rather than sit back and fall victim to whatever pandemonium awaits, or worse—relive those last few episodes of GOT—I asked Gat for tips for all of us on how to prepare for this terrible cosmic weather.

1. Be on high alert during rush hour

Whether you’re on a train or bus, or driving during the morning rush, be aware that the aggressive energy around you could lead to higher-than-usual tension. Think: road rage, people snapping at each other. “The commute is time when people’s tempers are set off very easily,” Gat says.

Along those lines, leaving early will do you some good. If you’re not in a rush, you’re less likely to be the person on edge and you won’t have to worry about delays from the chaos around you. If you have the option to work from home, this would be a great day for that!

2. Avoid your usual caffeine fix

This is a day to calm yourself down, not psych yourself up. “Do your best to stay chill during everyday interactions—that [could] mean swapping out your coffee for chamomile tea,” Gat says. (That said, if you’re a person who is cranky without caffeine, leave enough time to brew a cup so you start your day on the right foot!)

If you want to take that a step further surround yourself with calming scents, like lavender—if you can’t burn a candle, perfume works. This wouldn’t be a bad week to try some meditation, or learn some breathing exercises (one called “resonant breathing,” which has been recommended to veterans and survivors of genocides and natural disasters, takes just a few minutes to learn).

3. Hang out in threes

Having a third party present can be useful for keeping things in check when tempers flare. “When you’re arguing with someone, what they’ll say to you will be different based on whether you’re alone or if a teacher, parent, or boss is watching,” Gat says. “Make sure someone is watching.”

Just make sure that third party is someone who will make things better, not worse. “The best way to deal with Pluto problems is to bring in...an unbiased third party who can help mediate. The worst way to deal with Pluto problems is to cheat on someone or have secrets,” she says. And if no one else is around, “ask yourself what you would do if a parent that you really respect, or your hero, was in the room.”

4. Turn your revenge fantasy into a success fantasy

If you’re feeling an impulse to get back at someone on June 19, remember that revenge is almost always better in your imagination. If you can’t shake the impulse, however, lean toward a healthier version of it.

When they say, “‘Success is the best revenge,’ there’s still a lot of ego behind it,” Gat says. “But it’s a better place to lean into than, ‘I’m going to ruin your life.’” So if you’re feeling fixated with the day’s “relentless energy,” consider channeling that energy toward your own passions and healthy obsessions; tackle some research and let that energy propel you in the direction you’re going with those things.

5. Pick your battles, or at least delay them

It’s generally good practice to pick your fights, but we all have those moments when things that have been building up to be released. Wednesday is not the day for that. If you can’t hold back, save it for Thursday at least—then if you’re still moved to say something, you won’t be as relentless about it.

“Whenever you see Pluto, you always have to worry. Opposition means we can’t avoid things anymore. Mercury has a mouth, and Mars wants to pick fights,” Gat says. You may find you will be “clinging to your ego, refusing to surrender to change. The worst qualities in people can come out—jealousy, obsession, possessiveness and manipulation.”

6. Give yourself permission to be a little fake, just for a day

“Be smart about the battles you pick. You might have to be fake-nice to someone,” Gat says. So you may have to tell a little white lie, or smile at someone even if it’s through gritted teeth. This “might be really inauthentic for you on any other day, but [on June 19] you have to do the right thing in terms of your own sanity, and to keep everyone else safe, too,” she says.

If you can’t bring yourself to pretend, try to practice some compassionate communication. Remember: everyone has the capacity to blow up, even if you’re the most laid-back person you know. “No one is safe from this—we all have the capacity to blow up at each other,” Gat says. “It’s all about learning patience, being able to breath through things, and not acting on impulse.”

7. Write down your amazing comebacks, then maybe burn them

Carry a notebook around or have your phone handy to jot things down privately before saying something out loud that you may regret—especially with comebacks that feel justified in the moment. “Mercury is the planet of the mind and it’s currently in Cancer, which is a sign we think of as being really intuitive, but it doesn’t know the best way to ask for what it wants because has been in opposition with Saturn, the planet of restriction, this month,” Gat says. That means “there have been a lot of blocks around communication, and we haven’t been feeling as heard as we usually do,” and if we’ve been carrying something around in our minds we’ll want to just say them.

But the energy is very impulsive, so if you are going to give someone a piece of your mind, you may as well do it after you’ve thoroughly thought your perspective over (and when the astrological weather is more conducive for problem solving). Then, if you revisit those written thoughts another day, you may find they’re more harsh than you intended. You can also get a lot off your chest by unleashing all your anger out in a letter—and then safely burning it or ripping it up, Gat says.

8. Remember that your intentions don’t always translate

When it comes to communication, we often get hung up on the intentions behind our messages instead of the way they are received. Gat reminds us that during this intense day, lashing out for any reason—even in self-defense—isn’t going to produce desirable results.

“Mars is the planet of action and of war, and Cancer is the sign of the crab, which has a hard shell as its armor. Mars in Cancer has a lot to do with protection and safety, so when it’s opposing the planet of the underworld, Pluto, we really feel we have to protect ourselves,” she says. We may lash out, thinking we’re defending ourselves, not realizing it’s also offensive. We lash out for our own safety but it may not be solving any problems or getting you the closure or result you desire.”

9. Pre-empt miscommunications in bed by setting ground rules

If you don’t already have a safe word with your partner(s), Gat advises that you set them now. Establishing boundaries in advance gives you both the tools to avoid crossing them during sex. She notes that, “if you haven’t been getting what you want in bed due to not knowing how to ask, you will definitely reach your breaking point and will feel pushed to figure out how to request what you have been craving.”

10. Take your anger out on inanimate objects

Sometimes anger just needs an outlet. Luckily, those outlets exist. You could try renting a rage room, or if you have something you can safely smash with a hammer or an isolated place you can go to do some primal screaming, this is the day to do it, Gat says. “Anger has a real place in the world [and] in our lives. But let’s not get into silly fights on the commute, or destroy a relationship over ego.”

In the book "Trauma and the Body,” somatic psychologist Pat Ogden cites a technique where you push against a wall with all your might to release aggression. But if all else fails, a traditional punching bag could work, too.

11. Look for happy, productive endings

“Pluto is the planet of death and transformation and Mars rules knives and swords,” Gat says. “It’s all about severing things, so things are getting cut off.” This could mean an extremely dramatic urge to quit your job, or breakup with lovers or friends; but instead of having a soul-crushing confrontation, why not save it for a calmer day and purge your belongings instead? Get rid of stuff you no longer need, or in Gat’s words, “use the energy of endings for your benefit.

If you’ve thought it over and you really are ready to say goodbye to a person or situation, however, watch out for manipulations and power plays. “If you dump someone on this day in the hopes that they’ll try to win you back because you are testing them, you won’t be in luck!”

The good news is, Mercury only opposes Pluto once a year, and Mars only opposes it once every two years. But Gat warns we are also approaching eclipse season, which will “bring even more shocks and shake ups, as secrets are revealed and changes in power take place,” so there is more turbulence to come (hello, Mercury retrograde on July 7!).

Phroyd

#astrology #pluto

6 notes · View notes

pass-the-bechdel · 5 years

Text

Marvel Cinematic Universe: Captain America: Civil War (2016)

Does it pass the Bechdel Test?

No.

How many female characters (with names and lines) are there?

Seven (30.43% of cast).

How many male characters (with names and lines) are there?

Sixteen.

Positive Content Rating:

Three.

General Episode Quality:

Exciting and full of strong fodder for discussion and debate; by the same token, potentially frustrating.

MORE INFO (and potential spoilers) UNDER THE CUT:

Passing the Bechdel:

Natasha directs comments to Wanda in Nigeria, but Wanda addresses her response to the team as a whole.

Female characters:

Wanda Maximoff.

Natasha Romanov.

Maria Stark.

Mrs Spencer.

Sharon Carter.

Mrs Zemo.

Aunt May.

Male characters:

James Buchanan Barnes.

Steve Rogers.

Sam Wilson.

Brock Rumlow.

Howard Stark.

Tony Stark.

T’Chaka.

Vision.

Thaddeus Ross.

James Rhodes.

Helmut Zemo.

T’Challa.

Everett Ross.

Peter Parker.

Clint Barton.

Scott Lang.

OTHER NOTES:

My immediate thought on the concept of the Avengers being directed by a United Nations panel is the Rwandan genocide; follow from that, any number of other major atrocities that have taken place while the rest of the world sat back umm-ing and aah-ing over whether or not they should intervene. Anyone who knows a speck of history should be very reticent about the idea of being shackled by such political whims.

Ross refers to the unknown locations of Thor and Bruce Banner as being like ‘misplacing a couple of megaton nukes’, as if they’re objects and not autonomous sentient beings who can go where they please without having to declare their intentions, and that should really be the first major red flag to everyone that this guy ain’t on the level.

Vision’s equation about causality is a false equivalence, and an irrelevant one anyway, since oversight doesn’t do anything to hamper his theory about strength inviting challenge. You’re not actually reducing your strength, you’re just making yourself less able to meet those challenges as they come. I feel like Vision should be a Hell of a lot smarter than this absence of logic (also, looking at the threats themselves in previous films, the only ones which can be considered ‘strength inviting challenge’ issues in which the actions of any Avenger characters have ‘bred catastrophe’ are the Iron Man films, and Age of Ultron, all of which are examples of Tony’s hubris coming back to bite him, specifically. The conflict of every other film stems from either 1) trouble predating Iron Man (most of it SHIELD/Hydra related), or 2) other-worldly overspill where Earth becomes the battleground for something uninvited (Asgardian and/or infinity stone bullshit). And even when Tony is the one creating his own demons, he usually doesn’t do so actively through his Iron Man tech or persona (Obadiah Stane’s villainy is what led to Iron Man’s creation, not the other way around; yes, Tony’s grandstanding did directly invite competition in Iron Man 2, but he didn’t make an adversary out of Ivan Vanko, that was his father’s legacy; and Tony’s particular cruelty may have incited Aldritch Killian, but that event predated the creation of Iron Man by nine years, so it’s not a response to that strength. Only Ultron was genuinely a catastrophic consequence of Tony’s (and Bruce’s) abuse of power, but hobbling the Avengers’ ability to operate does nothing to prevent that sort of thing from happening again, it just stymies their ability to halt the onslaught after it begins. You solve that one with legislation limiting what anyone can recklessly create and unleash (which includes Vision himself, incidentally)).

And see, Steve is right; the Sokovia Accords just shift the blame when things go wrong, functionally it makes the Avengers less accountable for their actions by allowing them to play the ‘just following orders’ game. And the point he makes about the panel still being run by people with agendas is exactly what I’m talking about in that first dot point; when decisions are being made on a political basis instead of according to need, you get atrocities, and any person working for the United Nations is a political agent by default. Sokovia is actually a great example of the kind of place that falls through the cracks on the political stage, as it was noted to be ‘nowhere special’, i.e. not politically valuable, and therefore unlikely to receive a swift response from powerful nations who have no vested interests in the good of the country.

Tony’s argument here is extremely personal and emotion-driven; it’s all his own guilt about Ultron and Sokovia and his decision to stop manufacturing weapons, etc, and none of that is relevant to the rest of the team’s situation or their choices. He’s also utterly oblivious to his own privilege here, in that it’s super easy for him to handwave the particulars of the Accords, because he’s a filthy-rich white American whose main ‘thing’ is new technologies, which are not being restricted at all by these Accords; he has the luxury of just signing on and hoping to negotiate amendments later (and also, of having the resources to be able to thwart anything he disagrees with and just do what he wants regardless if he decides he’s right). He’s not taking a moment to consider what the Accords really mean for those members of the team with powers they can’t just ‘put down’, who don’t have the kinds of options and opportunities he has, up to and including the bargaining power to have the Accords ‘fixed up’ later. I really do my best to see both sides of this situation because there IS merit in the idea of the Accords, but no one in favour of it makes a good argument for it and it’s really frustrating.

Who tells someone that a close beloved friend is dead in a fucking text message??? The real villain of this film.

It goes without saying but I’m gonna say it anyway: it’s very hypocritical of T’Challa to support the Accords while also donning his super-suit and taking matters in foreign countries into his own hands. All of the destruction that occurs in Romania after Bucky escapes from his apartment building is because of T’Challa’s involvement (because he was trying to commit a literal murder!), and that kinda gets glossed straight over here.

Tony falls for Ross’ trick by referring to Wanda as a ‘weapon of mass destruction’ in the process of his efforts to justify her internment. It’s all really solid writing, really, vernacular choices that highlight the dehumanisation at the rotten core of the Accords and how good people can be suckered into it without realising until it’s too late (even when things like, say, denial of legal representation should definitely be red-flagging up the wazoo right now). But honestly, it’s such a wild leap from ‘Wanda can’t go on missions anymore’ to ‘we’re going to forcibly deny her the ability to go out in public’. Keep trying to tell yourself that’s not a fucked up situation, Tony.

Steve Rogers holding down a fucking helicopter is just...peak Captain America and I’m so glad.

The part where Tony recruits an actual child who is not involved in this situation at all, spiriting him away to another continent to fight supersoldiers, that’s just...beyond, honestly. I hate this as an introduction for Spiderman because it’s so wildly irresponsible of Tony, it’s an unforgivable thing to do. He’s a kid. This has nothing to do with him. This is where Tony officially loses me in this movie. You can take your self-righteous attempts at justifying your actions and shove ‘em, buddy. You’re actively endangering a child.

We really don’t need Steve to kiss someone every Cap movie. We didn’t need him weirdly mackin’ on his recently-deceased ex-love’s niece. Seriously.

Spiderman’s particular brand of quipping while fighting really irritates me, also. It’s altogether a big no from me on the Spiderman front.

Still love Ant-Man, though. He’s delightful. I also enjoy Hawkeye so much more here than I have in the Avengers films.

C’mon, T’Challa. You can’t attack and attempt to kill a guy outright and then play the ‘you must be guilty because you ran away’ schtick. Do a brain about it.

See, everyone else knows why they’re there and what they’re fighting for, they know the stakes. Scott is the only one on Cap’s side who isn’t already part of the situation anyway, but he’s read in on why he’s being asked to get involved and he’s a grown adult person making an informed decision. Peter doesn’t have that, he’s there fighting because Tony said so, and that’s just fucked up.

Heavy sigh. And here we go with the emotional Tony thing. Yeah, he just saw how his parents were killed by the Winter Soldier. That’s rough. It’s really rough. But he doesn’t just have an immediate emotional outburst, he has a sustained homicidal rage, which includes not only trying to kill Bucky, but also beating the Hell outta Steve, who, y’know, did not kill Tony’s parents. The fight scene lasts way too long and involves too much opportunity for cooler thought to prevail (both in problem-solving and in conversational moments), and someone whose emotions can send them reeling so completely out of control - even when they actively know they’ve been manipulated into it! Zemo literally just told you to your face that this was his plan! - someone with so little impulse control should never be given the power to make decisions for others or wield anything over them. This is all just a really, really great case for why Tony is ill-equipped to be an Avenger at all.

Watching Bucky digging the repulsor out of Iron Man’s chest with his metal hand is...so exciting. Rest in peace, awesome metal arm.

Zemo’s just a regular human, but he gets locked up under utterly inhumane circumstances. Again, the Accords involved a deal with a pretty insidious devil, and they didn’t actually have to prove that Steve’s position was the correct one to such a strong degree (we could have had a more nuanced conversation about the subject of accountability if the two sides were more evenly presented), but damn, the red flags, guys. It shouldn’t have taken Tony until he was horrified seeing his friends in the raft prison to finally clue in.

Ok, so, I know I already played the ‘I’m pregnant’ card to explain away my meandering commentary for Ant-Man, but it’s still true and only getting more significant as time goes on, so I regret to announce that - despite having looked forward to disassembling this movie since I started on this Marvel adventure - we’re now only a day out from publication and I haven’t written anything yet. I know, the deadline isn’t exactly set in stone and I could just hold off publishing until I’m ready, but that’s a slippery slope and if I start telling myself to just ‘get to it when you get to it’, who the fuck knows when it’ll happen. This isn’t supposed to be stressful, so I’m just gonna ramble a bit and see what comes out. There’s a thing wriggling in my guts and I have a house to paint. I’m doing my best.

First things first: my stance re: Accords is that the best method of oversight is the one which emphasises accountability, rather than permission (with acknowledgment that this is a fictional universe with threats and powers which do not reflect the real world). The kinds of issues our Avenger characters get involved with are typically of the sort which has to be nipped in the bud right-quick before it becomes untenable, and also not infrequently, the types of problems which do not offer them bountiful evidence to present to a board for evaluation before they get the ok to counter it. Faffing about with diplomacy and bureaucratic carrying-on is a great way to, say, allow Hydra to launch the Insight helicarriers and wipe out all dissenters to their rule before you have the chance to stop them, or (if Zemo’s apparent plan with the Winter Soldiers had been his real plan after all), to be stuck mopping up the global damage as an elite death squad roams around destabilising governments. I’m not a supporter of the adage ‘it’s better to ask forgiveness than permission’ in the real world, but in a comic book universe, with the supervillains and the world domination and the plots which consistently include chronic time-sensitive action and little if any concrete evidence? The Sokovia Accords are woefully inadequate. By all means, the Avengers should be answerable to someone, and being required to submit reports justifying their actions (and face disciplinary measures or even criminal charges if they cannot explain themselves to a satisfactory degree) is a completely reasonable thing to convene a United Nations panel to oversee. Maybe Tony can hop down off his high horse and face actual consequences for the Ultron fiasco. That’s fine with me, and it’s a logical thing for the world to clamour for. Shifting responsibility to a panel of UN politicians who will then no doubt be reticent to send the Avengers into anything pre-emptively (or within any kind of useful time frame) for fear of backlash is a terrible solution, and even more so when you’re being pushed into it without any time to evaluate and amend the original document before it becomes law.

(It’s worth noting that the person most likely to appreciate how easily the UN panel could be hijacked by political machinations not in the interest of the public good is Steve, owing to his personal role in uncovering and thwarting Hydra’s plans; Sam was roped into the Avenging world through that event, and thus it’s unsurprising that he would have the same concern chief in mind when refusing to sign. While Natasha does sign on to the Accords, she explicitly does not do so because she thinks the Accords are a good idea; she’s playing the political game and ‘reading the terrain’, as she says, and that’s consistent with her character. Tony being impulsive and dangerously emotion-driven is also unfortunately consistent, as is his self-righteousness about imposing his will on others to assuage his own guilt. Vision really has no excuse for being so bad at logicking his way to signing the Accords, but it’s no surprise to me that the most clear-headed staunch Accords supporter would be Rhodey, since following orders from others and unquestioning trust in your governing body is dead-on character for him as a career military man. I think he’s categorically wrong, yes, but I’m not mad at Rhodey for being a True Believer any more than I am at Natasha for being mercurial; both are in-character choices and ones which involve evaluative thought processes, and while ‘in-character’ may still be in play for Tony, evaluative thought processes are not, and that does make me mad. As I’ve noted before, he tends to work as a likable character despite his MANY flaws when he’s in his own movies, because acknowledging those foibles and working to fix them is a core part of his personal arcs in each Iron Man film; it was an essential quality missing in Age of Ultron, and one which made a monster of the character which I AM glad this movie is addressing with fallout; still, there’s a lack of tangible self-reflection and making amends from Tony in this movie, alongside some of his worst personal decisions, and I sincerely do not love him by the end of it.)

The good thing is, despite a few lazy elements - Vision! You tool! - and despite some very frustrating decisions, the central dilemma of the film is a strong and nuanced conversation-starter (and perhaps, argument-inducer). Even though the specific scenario and the people involved (Ross (both of them) and the floating Guantanamo, et al.) skews the narrative definitively against the Accords by the end, there is still fodder there for an intelligent debate about the merits of the concept if not the execution. And, most importantly, Steve’s position on the matter is the MCU’s Captain America to a T - a political story about the appreciable and essential difference between doing one’s duty to a concept, vs adherence to a moral code. Disobedience is a core part of Steve Rogers’ dilemmas - not that disobedience IS the dilemma for him, but that it is at odds with the patriotic good-ol’-boy image he is expected to inhabit from outside. Every Captain America film carries with it the idea that to do the highest good can mean rejecting everything that the people and institutions around you try to insist is right; refusing to play a role that has been prescribed to you; always making the choice for yourself, by your ethos, no matter how hard it is. Refusing to compromise when you see the compromise as an evil; planting yourself like a tree, and saying ‘No. You move’ (a great way of keeping Peggy’s influence alive and moving in the plot, by the way, and a key demonstration of how she and Steve met on the same wavelength. Lots of strong details in this movie, tbh).

My primary complaint, however, is that this is also too much like an Avengers film; nearly all of the other major characters are there, and Tony especially gets a LOT of screen time, and since Cap and his films are my uncontested faves I am pretty salty about having to share the stage for his last outing. The tone and the subject matter are still totally on-brand, but the focus is split, and that’s particularly annoying for what it leaves behind. While Bucky is made central to the drive of the plot, Steve finally being reunited with him, bringing him in, getting the cathartic other side to what was so exquisitely set up in The Winter Soldier, it falls by the wayside a bit and comes off underdone. Sam is certainly there, being wonderful as always, but he doesn’t get a lot to actively influence, he’s mostly just That Other Guy, and it’s a real shame since he was a highlight among super-stiff competition in his introductory film. The touch of Peggy that shines through the film is poignant, but Sharon Carter gets the bad end of the stick with under-developed characterisation and a very ill-advised zero-chemistry attempt to stir a speck of romance in a story with no room for it, and altogether, the kinds of quiet character moments which added so much depth to The Winter Soldier are very much lacking here. We’ve got so many other characters on deck already, plus the introduction of two new major players (T’Challa has a solid, sombre presence which suits the film, and even his hypocrisy fits snugly into the plot so as not to be a barb against him, but as I’ve mentioned already, I am squarely against Peter Parker’s squeaky excessive comic-relief inclusion and the dire implications it has for Tony Stark’s moral compass), and we’re already spending so much time on beefing up Tony’s side of the Civil War. I don’t personally think the movie is bloated, overlong, or incoherent, but it definitely wanders close to all three and I wouldn’t be inclined to argue very strenuously with anyone who wanted to denounce it on any of those fronts. It has a lot going on, not quite too much for an ensemble movie, but more than it should as a story with a single character’s name in the title. I’m still mostly-satisfied by it, and consider it one of the stronger MCU films to date, but as a third Captain America, specifically? A bit of a let-down.

#Marvel Cinematic Universe #Captain America: Civil War #Bechdel Test #female representation #MCU #Captain America #Civil War

5 notes · View notes

fireflysummers · 5 years

Text

Delta Rune: Addendum

People have asked me if my opinions have shifted at all in light of Toby Fox’s FAQ.

The answer is yes and no.

Also, I’ve gotten a fair amount of...unasked for feedback on my other post, which was mostly just my own musings and opinion? So I might as well just kinda...address a bunch of things here, based on a couple observations over the last 48 hours.

What People Didn’t Like (And Why)

The Repetition of Plot Elements from Undertale in the Dark World

This one’s pretty common, and very justified given that, when the demo first launched, we had no idea that it was a demo. For all we knew, it was some kind of finished product.

Although I didn’t want to believe that this is the case, it’s not uncommon for creators to accidentally fall into a sophomore slump of sorts, where under the pressure of measuring up to their freshman fame, they end up creating something dull and uninspired.

Despite that, there wasn’t any level of self-awareness that indicated that the Dark World was supposed to be a cheaper version of Undertale. And then it ended by falling into the “it was just a dream” trope (not entirely, but close enough), which is one of my least favorite tropes, so I was just turned off altogether.

The Battle System

I didn’t really enjoy the new combat system (that’s definitely a personal thing though...turn-based jrpg games have always been a struggle for me, and I straight up don’t have the time for the strategy that it often takes). That aside, Fox himself admits that the system is rough and really unbalanced.

Also, I get the sense that he wants to bring home that theme of your choices mean nothing, but isn’t exactly sure how to do that yet, which explains a lot of the issues with ACTing in the demo.

Even after he gets it fixed up, I’m not sure I’m really going to enjoy the battle system, although I do commend him for his creativity and the attempt to integrate Undertale’s bullet hell into a turn-based game style.

Underdeveloped Characters

This one I can forgive almost entirely, by nature of it being a demo rather than a finished piece of work. I can relax my criticism of the Dark World NPCs as a result.

That said, I still failed to really feel anything other than aww...cute a couple of times (usually as Ralsei)

Oh, that and a shit ton of existential horror at Undyne and Alphys not knowing each other, the world being generally indifferent to whatever made Susie the way she is, and that everybody is turning a blind eye or actively punishing Asgore for some unknown crime.

But I’ll talk about that a bit more in the next section.

The Vague Relation to Undertale and the Re-Use of Characters

Okay so like. I understand that Toby Fox insists that it’s Not Undertale.

Except that like.

I don’t buy that for a second.

Like, it’s Not Undertale only in the sense that it’s not related to the pacifist ending, but doesn’t disqualify it from being a follow-up to the genocide run (and therefore a direct sequel of sorts).

That aside, if it truly was Not Undertale, then he wouldn’t have named it Delta Rune, brought Gaster into it, and drawn visual and flavor text metaphors to the original game. It’s related, it might be an AU, but that doesn’t make the OOC meanness of the familiar faces easy to swallow.

It could easily interpreted as “unsettling and OOC to show the player that their expectations will be subverted and that there is something Seriously Wrong with this world,” and a lot of people have interpreted it that way! I’m on the fence there myself, but you gotta understand that not everybody shares that interpretation.

For others, including myself to some extent, the message was:

In the absence of dire circumstances, the characters that you were led to believe cared deeply about each other and you, are indifferent, apathetic, and downright mean.

I mean, even if Kris on their own is a total dick? That doesn’t justify the way that the other characters treat each other.

And that lack of warmth in the story was felt like a gut-punch to a small number of people.

On top of that, the weird twist ending didn’t do much to subvert that message. It gave no sense of whether or not the entire thing indicated a fundamentally sick world, or disprove that sense of they only cared about you and others out of a mutual need.

And if you can put yourself in that mindset, you can understand how that could be painful.

What People Didn’t Like About Me (And Others) Not Liking It

You’re Complaining Because it’s Not Undertale

No, I’m complaining because it’s Too Much Undertale. Because my personal prerogative is that Undertale is perfect the way it is and any additional content would only detract value from the original.

I was sincerely hoping for a totally new game, with maybe cameos or nods to Undertale, because I didn’t want to risk that horrible sequel syndrome.

And while we, as fans, can opt to ignore horrible sequels (see: the entirety of the Harry Potter fandom), at the same time...sometimes you can’t unsee what you’ve seen. Sometimes sequels are enough to mar your affections and feelings for characters, especially because it comes from The Voice of God Dog.

You’re Can’t Complain that Things are OOC When It’s an AU!

-rubs forehead-

Look. I don’t know if you know this, but I adore AUs. Not every AU, of course, but I loved the concept and how the community came together to create some kind of semi-cohesive multiverse.

I mean, I literally drew over 100 different AUs: SET 1 || SET 2 || SET 3 || SET 4 || SET 5 || SET 6 || SET 7 || SET 8 ||

But there’s a difference between fandom AUs and canon AUs--namely in that fandom AUs can be as out of character as they want, because it’s a fan creation.

There are multiple series that play with that multiverse theory as well, within their own canons, starting with the entire body of Osamu Tezuka, but also including the works of CLAMP (most notably XxxHolic and Tsubasa: Reservoir Chronicles), Adventure Time, the Final Fantasy series, and so on.

And the key to making an effective multiverse? The thing that makes it work?

Keeping the characters in-character. There has to be that kind of consistency, otherwise it doesn’t function on a narrative level. You’re just reusing character designs and assigning new personalities, because you’re too lazy to design new characters.

Or worse, you’re baiting in previous players on a sense of nostalgia which is a trick I do not appreciate.

You Shouldn’t Rely on Fictional Works to Aid Your Mental Health

Screw you.

Everybody has Real Issues in their lives. Sometimes we need a hand from something or somebody else to keep moving.

Fine, But There’s No Reason To Be Publicly Upset by DR

It’s okay to dislike additional material, for whatever reason, so long as you’re not attacking others for liking it. It’s okay to be upset by something, even if it’s not rational, and you don’t need to force others to like what you like, nor should you feel guilty that somebody else doesn’t ‘get it.’

Will You Play Chapter 2?

I will purchase it to support Toby Fox on his endeavors.

But you gotta understand, I straight up don’t play video games most of the time. Don’t have the time or the energy.

I only played Undertale after I’d had the whole thing spoiled to me, and knew it was worth the investment of my time. I should’ve waited on this one too, but I was too eager, and instead lost 4-5 hours of critical time for my graduate coursework (which definitely contributed to my annoyance).

TL;DR

You guys realize it’s okay for people to dislike deltarune? It’s okay for them to have been hurt by the characterization in deltarune? And people don’t have to write an essay in order to hold those opinions?

And that you don’t have to aggressively convert people to it like you’re some kind of church missionaries?

-sighs- At any rate, beginning to feel a bit more optimistic overall, and after that interview I can feel Toby Fox’s enthusiasm (he had something cool and he couldn’t wait to show it off!!), and I can get excited for him and others, even if as a whole the entire game experience fell flat.

Some day, I might even warm up to the game well enough to draw some stuff some time. I’ve got some fun ideas and theories, but still refuse to be hopeful that it’ll actually shape up.

Because I am made of salt.

#undertale #undertale spoilers #deltarune #deltarune spoilers #delta rune #delta rune spoilers #text #long post

122 notes · View notes

ninja8tyu · 4 years

Text

I was told literally 4 days ago to not make threats, and within that span of time, I’m reminded of why I gave up on rational reasoning a long time ago.

1) People don’t care about the facts.

Oh, maybe the lucky few care, but majority of people are pathetic expendable sheep who jump onto the bandwagon, regardless of where it’s headed. It doesn’t matter how many goddamn facts you slam onto the table, every single goddamn human on this planet goes “b-but... my morality and feels...”

Like fuck sakes. What am I supposed to do about that? Call the FBI or some shit and have them deal with this shit when the topic’s about something that can negatively impact, ruin, or even kill massive amounts of people? Then that really wouldn’t be any different than using force, now would it? What’re the FBI and crap gonna do? The same kind of “hey, don’t do that, here are the facts, calm down” that many others, not just me, have attempted to do but failed to succeed?

To be honest, I feel like people try too hard to copy Gandhi. He even failed in the end when his killers were executed despite his preaching of non-violence. Ironic, isn’t it, that the kindest man promoted violence with his death, despite even feeling sorry for his killers in his last moments.

So yeah. Kinda pissed. Why do I have to play a saint for a steadfast sinner? I doubt anyone tried to talk it out with Osama bin Laden and ISIS when they massacred innocents “for allah” and shit. Try Hitler.

That, and people twist the facts for their own agenda. I remember some textbook cited a study that disproved the positive correlation between violence and video games, but of course, the textbook said there was a cause between the two in the positive direction, when in reality, the study proved a negative correlation.

2) People don’t listen and aren’t open to change in the slightest.

Oh, maybe the lucky few care, but majority of people don’t listen at all. I can count the amount of “those are good points” said by someone else on my hands, and god if I had a penny for every “lol too long not gonna read” or “lol k sure” I’d pay off the US debt, fully fund everyone’s college education, pay off everyone’s student debt, and somehow still be ungodly rich by the end of it.

Thing is, you can’t change someone who isn’t willing to change. That’s on them. And sure, anyone could say “you can’t control them, so focus on what you can control,” say that to the Jews during the holocaust. CAN’T CONTROL HITLER, BUT HEY, YOU CAN CHANGE YOURSELF. Seriously, already throughout history, we’ve justified murder for stupider reasons than for justice and peace. Besides for bad reasons, stripping the rights of the Japs in America for peace and terrorism prevention? I wonder how many people died from maltreatment.

While we’re spending our time trying to talk them down, let’s let the bodies pile up from direct and indirect causes rooting from the bastard we’re trying to “civilly reason with.” I can prove with a lot of facts on several issues I argue for that there is a direct and/or indirect cause that will increase the deaths of people via suicide or shootings, but of course, I doubt anyone would care, even if I cite literally every single academic paper on Earth.

3) Might makes right in the very end.

“Huh, that makes sense. I’ll stop bullying you,” -a nonexistent bully.

Seriously, if you were a slave, try taking back to a cruel master and telling them to stop because it was wrong. Try being the wimpy kid telling the big fat son of a bitch bully that “what you’re doing is wrong and uncivil” and see if that piece of shit will go like “alright, I’ll stop.”

Every single time, a bad person was stopped because the little guy became the bigger guy, or there was a bigger guy for the little guy to turn to. Tell the little terrorist to stop executing people for allah because they’re hurting people who don’t deserve it. No no, go. Trust me, they won’t shoot you or anything. They’ll DEFINITELY stop.

The reason why bad people wouldn’t stop? Why would they listen to someone clearly weaker than them? Only when you’re on-par or stronger than them is when they’ll listen. My narcissist brother stopped trying to go for a punch after he broke his itty bitty little pinky and fingers when his wussy punch went straight across my cheek, and started listening and talking quite a bit more after that incident.

Which is, honestly, quite hypocritical of me because I don’t do any fighting. I just shout and rant like a motherfucker about issues instead of go out and actually do things.

And sure, I could get the bigger guy. They exist. The teachers, the feds, whatever. Thing is:

a) You can’t rely on others all the time. Call them over for every issue, you know. Tire them out until they can’t do anything. An organization is finite, and its finity is composed of easily tired humans. They also need time to act as well, so what to do when time is of the essence? Just keep crying for someone else?

b) More personal than general, but I’ve had a bad history with asking others for help, only to not receive. Thanks, teachers. I really sense the concern </s>.

The issues I have and want to fight against are also issues that no one can just take down with force. It’s ideas. Ideas that people act on and people give power to, which hurt people who have done nothing wrong or wasn’t born just like the others.

Well, technically, eliminate everyone with that idea and it’d be gone, but that wouldn’t work, due to several technical and ethical issues. So uh, no.

To simplify why that wouldn’t work:

case 1) successful genocide

The idea still exists within culture and creations from it, aka books n’ shit.

case 2) burn all the books

The people can still spread it. Hurr durr.

case 3) try both?

People can just reinvent it down the line of history.

case 4) omnicide?

Are you an idiot?

In summary: allowing the idea to exist and be disproven will limit/stop the harm done of the people who let said idea affect them in the future.

Thus I introduce you to my unending loop of dealing with stupid people:

Solution 1) Talk it out civilly: wouldn’t work for the reasons above.

Solution 2) Violence and force: wouldn’t work for the reasons above.

The only ways out of the loop are the following:

Escape 1) Drag the ones capable of change out, gain new perspective, possibly help bring others out as well. [Issue: more time passes, more bodies pile up]

Escape 2) Eliminates the ones causing harm and thus minimizes/stops all harm henceforth. [Issue: doesn’t solve underlying problem]

And unless someone wants to accomplish the same task (end unnecessary pain) perfectly, it’s the acceptance of one of the issues to be inevitable and unsolvable.

Personally, I cannot tell anyone who I can’t help the words “well that’s just life” if I choose to be civil, nor be the one who tells who I can’t persuade “this is for the greater good” because in either situation, it’s fucked up for its own reason. So yay, neverending internal conflict.

And finally, “why don’t you just ignore them?”

Because I’m not normal (wow, what a surprise) within societal standards, mainly due to aspergers and other mental oddities, and some of this shit I’m “fighting” (as in rant and complain about) for kinda pertains to whether or not I’m gonna die in the future.

Anyway, that’s all. A therapist sometimes interrupts my train of thought and I end up forgetting to say the stuff I did here, thus never letting me actually resolve the issue.

I still need a professional tho. Need to find and schedule one soon.

#rant #sfw

0 notes

jordynthepotato · 4 years

Note

more questions huh? 1-11, 13-16, 19, 21, 24, 28, 31, 33, 35-38, 40, 42, 44, 47, 48, 51, 52, 59, 60, 66, 70, and 72

this is what i get for asking for more questions

long post

1. Who’s your favourite character from UT?: it varies, currently toriel

2. Who’s your least favourite character from UT?: j e r r y

3. Your opinion about UT fandon: a chaotic mess of art, theories, and alternate universes

4. What’s your favourite quote?: “* Despite everything, it’s still you.”

5. What’s your favourite soundtrack?: this also varies, but before i realized it was destroying my phone battery i would listen to the more calming ambient soundtracks to help me sleep- like waterfall, it’s raining somewhere else, quiet water, uwa! so temperate

6. Pacifist, neutral or genocide?: aaa this one was really hard to answer- i’d be lying to myself if i said pacifist, but i can’t really say genocide either. but i hate the neutral endings-

7. Why did you decide to play UT?: OH THERE’S A STORY BEHIND THIS- so i’m nearing a year into the fandom, still haven’t gotten to play the game yet because i’m broke. BUT i’m going on a school trip to washington dc for a week, my mom gives me money on a visa card for souvenirs. i’m wandering the shops, when i realize: i don’t have to spend this all on overpriced souvenirs. once i got home i bought undertale and later bought stardew valley with the rest of it-

8. Favourite battle?: in a pacifist run, undyne. i just like blocking spears- pff

doing genocide, sans, i love it and hate it at the same time-

9. Favourite scene?: when you get to talk to everyone standing around you after saving asriel, there’s just a bunch of cute little exchanges between everyone eirbgkutiebgr

10. Your first letter to Mettaton was: it was either “leg” or “toby” my first playthrough

11. Your reaction when you saw Omega Flowey for the first time: i was watching a youtuber play it a few years ago, my reaction was essentially just “what the /frick/ is that thing is that flowey wh”

when i got to play for myself i beat him without dying on my first run

13. Which UT character reminds you of yourself?: i’m... honestly not sure-

14. Which UT character reminds you of your best friend?: they flip between sans and papyrus

15. Would you smooch a ghost?: heck yeah

16. Which UT character would be your best friend? Why?: papyrus, he’s so friendly let’s be honest i’d have no choice but to accept him as my best friend

19. Which ending was your first?: tECHNICALLY neutral since you get a neutral ending and /then/ go back for the alphys date and true lab to do true pacifist-

21. Your favourite place in UT and why: (Undyne’s house for example): hm... new home. no matter what run you’re playing you get so much story and emotion out of it, and it just sort of... feels safe there? i don’t know how to describe it i just

new home’s a cool place

24. Butterscouch or cinnamon pie?: cinnamon, but i like butterscotch too

28. Do you wanna have a bad time?: :) 🔪

31. Would you want to fall into underground?: yes and no? being honest i’d probably manage to die to the first froggit in the ruins but just- undertale’s been a big hyperfixation of mine for the past 2-3 years i’d /love/ to experience its story firsthand yknow

33. One reason why you love UT: toby just has this really unique sense of humor and i love it- i don’t know how to describe it but it’s good

35. If you could choose one type of food from UT, what would it be?: butterscotch cinnamon pie... mmm...

36. Your favourite amalgamate: am i the only one that was actually disturbed by the amalgamates- i don’t have a favorite, but i feel bad for them all aaa-

37. Your headcanon about Gaster: who do you think Gaster is to Sans and Papyrus? (Father, brother, uncle etc): i’m open to most headcanons/interpretations, and i don’t feel like going through other blogs right now to find data to make a decision based on anything, i’m gonna say either father or brother

38. Your opinion about bad puns: they’re usually funny

40. Which of human souls fits you the most?: OH this one’s interesting, for the longest time, none of the soul traits seemed to fit me and i joked about how maybe i’m just soulless. a couple of weeks ago i had this dream, all i could remember was that i was holding out my soul, and learned that in the very least my subconscious self thinks my soul is integrity

42. Which song reminds you of UT or one of the UT characters? Why?: megalovania, i don’t think i need to explain

44. Do you forgive Asgore for what he’s done?: while i don’t think anything can justify him killing 6 human children, i can forgive him. it wouldn’t be easy, being king in his circumstances. knowing your people would never be truly happy until they were free, but also knowing that you could suffer the same fate as your son if you cross the barrier and get the rest of the souls yourself. if the solution falls down a convenient hole in the mountain and comes to you, you’d be very compelled to take it and live with the guilt and consequences.

47. Do you listen to any fanmade songs? If so, then which are your favourite?: too many... i can’t choose-

answered 48 and 66 here: https://jordynthepotato.tumblr.com/post/189152978131/bruh-how-about-sixty-six-and-fourty-eight-one

51. Who is your favourite dog?: annoying dog

52. What was your reaction to true lab?: d i s c o m f o r t

59. Your favourite puzzle: i don’t know what it’s called- the ones in snowdin where you have to turn the x’s to o’s?

60. Which battle was the hardest for you?: genocide, it was obviously sans-

on my first pacifist run, though, i forgot to grab something from the spider bakesale in the ruins and had to go through muffet without it. i almost ragequit

70. When playing for the first time how many candies did you take?: i think i took one? but ever since i’ve always tried to take four pff

72. If you had to be one of the main characters, which would you choose?: i’ve thought about this for way too long i can’t choose-

0 notes

putris-et-mulier · 7 years

Note

so do you appporve the new arc of captain america, or you find it 'offensive"?

I agree with it, it makes perfect sense and I’m kind of disappointed in how so few people understand what they are trying to do

I’m not defending Marvel, I’m defending Nick Spencer. I believe wholeheartedly in his premise and I want him to get a chance to finish the story, whether he will do a good job or not remains to be seen.

It’s really convenient that everyone remembers when Captain America punched Nazis but not the multiple times he was a Nazi. Which even occurred when the creators were writing his book.

Captain America is not Jewish, he’s America. What he really represents is America as a nation and at his best has been used as a personification of America. He was punching Nazis before real American soldiers ever did and when we look back his creation, along with many others, encouraged Americans to actively take a place in World War II. He was a propaganda tool of social dissent. Sometimes the best way to tell his stories, to put them in perspective to its readers (which were not children, comic books are something everyone read regardless of age and gender and they were up until the Comics Code Authority) is to make him sympathize and work with Nazis. If your protagonist can’t understand something then neither will you and avoiding issues isn’t going to help anyone. If your protagonist doesn’t work things out to the core of the issue it’s a book in an ongoing series and I don’t want this world to get a sequel, I want to just wrap this one up with the best ending possible.

America just elected Trump as president. I could list a bunch of other things but that should sum everything up. In the last few years it’s become clear how infested our nation and government is with white supremacist eugenics and to all of us it seems like everyone who has any humanity left lost and a lot of us, a lot of marginalized groups, can see more clearly how close we are to becoming victims of World War III.

I get it, that’s why you don’t want Captain America to be a Nazi. He’s your unproblematic fave, if you ignore 90% of his cannon, and if he’s going to represent America then he damn sure represent what America was meant to be, what those white able-bodied racist social elites meant for it to be.

I would be so disappointed if Marvel didn’t allow this pitch to go through. Captain America being a nice guy and punching out people you demonize is not going to teach you anything. And Americans have things to learn. As a nation we need to be taken to school.

It feels like everyone complaining about this has never read anything or has ever seen a movie or TV show or have any grasp on critical thinking… This is art. This is what art is meant to do. If art doesn’t make you mad or sad or furious it’s pointless and un-motivational, especially when it’s sociopolitical. If you aren’t mad enough about the way the world is enough to do something, you need something to put a fire under your ass. Nick Spencer might not be a good enough writer to take this on but we won’t know until he tries and people definitely need to tell this story in as many ways as possible.

Captain America is becoming a Nazi because America is a fascist country and the personification of American propaganda being a Nazi only makes sense. No one actually believes this is permanent, do they? Captain America is going to fix everything in the end and that’s the point. To show him not just grandstanding, as America is want to do, but to show Nazis as actual people with love and fears, they aren’t monsters.

It would be easier if they were monsters because we could eradicate them with no lingering guilt about mass murder. It would be easier if they were monsters because that would mean none of us can turn into one. That’s the lesson that needs to be learned.

Trump didn’t win the popular vote but he got a lot of votes and demonizing the people who voted for him isn’t going to solve anything. We are in this together, they are our neighbors and a part of our American family, even if we fucking hate them. Until everyone stops treating bigotry as a foreign object that can be taken on and off at will nothing is going to improve.

As a disabled person I’m relieved a story like this is being told and that they are pressing forward despite the backlash because a lot of the people complaining have time, but we don’t.

The Nazi party didn’t just spring out of nowhere with the power of political and social support to just get to work on concentration camps. It takes time.

Let’s ask the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum what the initial steps to the Holocaust were:

1. Nazi Germany sterilized 300,000 to 400,000 people under their Sterilization Law (1934) who targeted the “abnormal” (a.k.a., disabled people) as apposed to the “asocials” (non-aryan races) citizens2. The Marriage Law (1935) required all people to provide proof that they could not produce children with disabling heredity diseases3. 1939 Hitler made it legal to give disabled people “mercy deaths” by their physicians as the government saw fit4. Systematic killings of disabled people in government, church, and nursing homes were done under the secret operation called “Operation T4” in reference to Tiergartenstrasse 4. Patients targeted were identified by a red cross on their papers (hilarious irony)5. In 1940 the preferred method of killing these patients became gas chambers. 70,273 victims were recorded between 1940 and 1941, 5,000 of these disabled people were also Jewish6. In 1941 Operation T-4 ended the killings went public with the slogan “useless eaters” to justify the murders7. It is estimated that between 200,000 and 250,000 people were murdered under Operation T-4

8. Many of the gas chambers used in the infamous Nazi camps were originally built for the T-4 victims and physicians trained through this operation went on to work at the camps and run the chambers.

These were social acceptable things that gained the Nazi party popularity and directly, and literally, created concentration camps. If you compare that time to what’s going on now it should be obvious why people like me have no patience for babying anyone.

Right now in North America more and more states/provinces are making assisted medical suicide legal and although it is still the disabled person’s choice whether or not to go through with it insurance companies are beginning to only cover the assisted suicide because it’s cheaper than covering all the costs it takes to be a disabled person. So disabled people are given the choice of slowly dying or just letting someone killed them now. To put it in perspective, it’s a very simple process that you do yourself at home by taking 9g of secobarbital or 10g of pentobarbital. Pentobarbital is disgusting so I doubt that will be the preferred poison but it would’ve been fun to be referred to as a P–10 patient, it’s more fun to say then S–9 patient.

So, given all that and the fact that there was a massive genocide of disabled people last year, a manifesto calling for our eradication and everything, in a first world country and no one talked about it, just like no one talked about any of these things, makes me pro Nazi Captain America. Fuck, it wasn’t even just a genocide, it was very efficiently done because of segregation, the names of the victims weren’t released because outing people as having disabled relatives, even freshly dead ones, would have been embarrassing to the families, and tokens like flowers/candles/gifts from citizens weren’t allowed to even be put outside the facility on city property.

Give me Nazi Captain America.

I didn’t mention where the genocide happened or what it was named for a reason. If you guys reading this can tell me off the top of your head at least what country it took place in I don’t give a shit what you think about Captain America being a Nazi. If America isn’t a place where people at least knew when one of our major allies had and honest to God genocide then that’s the Captain America they deserve.

If you’ve heard about Chechnya’s gay concentration camps but haven’t heard about this try thinking about why that is.

No one is learning from history so I hope to God at least a few people can learn through literature and art.

Boycott the company if you like, I’m actually glad people are because I believe boycotts are one of the most effective protests in a capitalist country so the more common the better, but don’t tell me Captain America isn’t a fucking Nazi.

#crowley-crow #abelism #actually disabled #disability #spoonie #Signal Boost™ disability #nazi #captain america #Nazi Captain America #racism #eugenics #world war ii #Genocide #Info

212 notes · View notes

swawesome-wow · 7 years

Note

If you wanted people to be informed, you'd have mentioned Palestinian terrorists and Hamas. You'd have mentioned the suicide bombings and hundreds of murdered innocent Israelis. You'd have mentioned the Palestinian leadership that first declined coexistence in 1948 and rejected every offer of peace since then. You'd have mentioned lies and propaganda and blood libel against Jews, thought in Palestinian schools. You care about playing the victim. But it's an old game. And you'll lose.

I wasn’t going to take the time to respond, but it’s summer break, and I refuse to let you hide behind anonymity and not learn a little something while you’re there.

1. “If you wanted people to be informed, you’d have mentioned Palestinian terrorists and Hamas. You’d have mentioned the suicide bombings and hundreds of murdered innocent Israelis.”

Oh yes, how could I forget to talk about Palestinian terrorists and Hamas. The thousands upon thousands of innocent Israelis killed. Wait, what’s that? 1,213 Israelis have been killed since September 29, 2000. 9,478 Palestinians have been killed since September 29, 2000. I have never claimed that Palestinians have not killed innocent Israelis. Those numbers are only since the year 2000. Israel has occupied Palestine for 50 years, give or take, as you yourself aptly admitted by bringing up the conference in 1948. There is immense loss on both sides, though one has lost nearly 9x as many lives. However, comparing it numerically is extremely reductive, not only are you wrong numerically, you’re ignoring why people have been slaughtered on both sides, and what brought everyone to this point. There is no “justifying” the murder of Israelis by Palestinians, there is only understanding why these killings happened, holistically, and understanding the context.

People refer to it now as the Israeli-Palestinian “Conflict, Divide, etc.” But before recent, heavy political and monetary support of Israel, it was called the Palestinian Genocide, for good reason.

2. “You’d have mentioned the Palestinian leadership that first declined coexistence in 1948 and rejected every offer of peace since then.”

Let me make this very, painfully clear.

Palestine does not owe coexistence to Israel. Israel is an occupying state, an oppressive state, and one that has committed genocide against the Palestinian people.

To bring it down to your level of understanding, the Palestinians were there first. Palestinians of EVERY religion, including Judaism, though I’ll touch on that later. The Palestinian leadership has been lamentable, no one is denying that. But let me put it this way:

Let’s say America was invaded today, by, say, Canada. (Sorry Canada, you were the first country to pop into my head, since I owe half my citizenship to you.) After things calm down enough for the leaders to meet, Trudeau says to *shudder* Trump (or even Obama, in this fake scenario, would make the same decision), “Hey man, I know you were here first and everything, and I know we bloodily invaded you, but like, let’s just coexist, like on that bumper sticker you guys are so fond of.” Do you honestly think the President of the United States of America, would EVER agree to something like that? Seriously? Of course not, that would be ridiculous. Even 50 years later, America would still be fighting for its freedom from its maple-drenched oppressors. So why are you holding Palestine to such ridiculous standards?

I am truly saddened by the violence that has stemmed from this entire situation, but until Israeli soldiers stop wrongfully arresting, imprisoning, and killing Palestinians, even children, I don’t think you can possibly hope for “peace.”

My grandmother, a few years back on a return visit to Palestine after she fled so many years ago to Canada, was stopped at the border wall (yes, there is a wall there, in case people were unaware) for eight hours, for no reason. She was not charged with anything, neither were her daughters, my aunts, that were with her. Her crime was being Palestinian. I wonder what that sounds like.

Oh yes, and because of that wall, the already pitiful economy of the Gaza Strip has crumbled, and they have no way of rebuilding it. Even if Palestinians find jobs in Israel, they’re backed up for hours each day just trying to get processed through the wall in either direction. They’ve been economically choked off from the rest of the world, yet Israel continues to receive monetary aid as if they’re in desperate need.

3. “You’d have mentioned lies and propaganda and blood libel against Jews, thought in Palestinian schools. You care about playing the victim. But it’s an old game. And you’ll lose.”

Once again, I need to make something crystal clear. So listen up. \

Palestinians do not hate Jews. They hate the Israeli government. Not Israelis, not Jews, the Israeli government, because that is the body that is responsible for Palestinian suffering.

Since I was in elementary school, any time someone found out I had Palestinian parents, they immediately made quips or even stated directly that I must hate Jewish people. I had someone say “oh, so you’re anti-Semitic.” I’ve had people ask me if myself or my parents are terrorists (and I used to be Christian, now I don’t practice anything, my point being that I can’t imagine how hard it is for any Muslims). This misconception is so widespread that it’s toxic, killing any reasonable discourse on the subject by people stamping me with the anti-Semite sticker. So, I’m sorry, I haven’t had the chance to play the victim. Let me know how that goes for you.

What I said earlier, about all religions coexisting? Let me elaborate.

For the thousands of years that Palestine has existed, Christians, Muslims, Jews, ~whatever~ lived side by side, happily and comfortably. Another misconception is that the Israeli movement came from within Palestine, which is just plain misinformation. This is a very, very reductive explanation of what actually happened, forgive me for not being more detailed:

When the second World War ended, there were thousands upon thousands of displaced European Jews (mostly German as you might imagine, but elsewhere as well). When Europe (and America) tried to figure out where to help these people relocate, no one wanted to take them in, deciding it would be too difficult to reintegrate. Palestine had the room and the kind heart needed to take them in, so that’s where many were relocated, en masse. But it was a finite time that Palestine agreed to host these refugees as refugees, they would eventually need to either integrate with the Palestinian people (gain citizenship, etc), or decide where they would want to move, if not stay there. But the relationship began to change, as some began to perpetuate the idea that they belonged there all along, and that the Palestinians were the ones that needed to leave or integrate elsewhere. As with most conflict, religion took a match and set it to kerosene, as suddenly Jerusalem was the center of the occupier’s claims to the land. While I won’t try to argue about it as I’m not informed enough on religious history, I will say that it is entirely possible to create a religious homeland without literally invading the country and creating a religious state. Church and state are separate for a reason, and have to cooperate, not override one another.

So there are plenty of Palestinian Jews that understand and are outraged at the Israeli government, though they have been left out of intentional eviction, arrests, torture, and killings.

COMIC RELIEF BREAK that is actually somewhat related but I promise it’s funny:

One time my mom was telling me about something that happened over in Palestine to friends of our family so word made it back to us. Like I said, the three major religions were living pretty happily together, especially where these friends lived. The IDF was evicting all the Palestinians from a neighborhood to allow Israeli settlers to take over. Our friends were one of the families kicked out, and they were best friends with the Jewish family next door! So when the IDF came knocking on the Jewish family’s door to offer them the keys to their best friends’ house, (they were Jews so they were allowed to stay with the new Israelis coming in), the husband of the family was FURIOUS. He started to back-talk, offended at the very thought, but his wife (the really clever one in this story) shut him up and took the keys. The husband couldn’t believe his wife would betray their best friends like that, but she just rolled her eyes in a “you idiot” fashion. They had the keys now, and they promptly gave them back to their best friends so they could reclaim their property! I always thought that story was hilarious :D

While I am disgusted at the thought that you could somehow compare this entire subject to a game, if that’s the only way you can comprehend such a vast discourse, I’m happy to oblige the metaphor: The only “loser” here is the one who can’t think for themselves and hasn’t done a little goddamn research, you soggy walnut.

Speaking of research! Here are a couple of resources for those who have been following along! I honestly can’t say that the second is an unbiased source, however if you’re looking for straight statistics and numbers, check out the first link! It’s where I got the exact numbers I used above. If you want the international law/human rights perspective, check out the third link. Thanks y’all!

http://ifamericaknew.org

http://www.globalresearch.ca/israels-genocide-towards-palestinian-arabs/5591341 (thanks canada)

https://ccrjustice.org/genocide-palestinian-people-international-law-and-human-rights-perspective (really good source explaining the international law and human rights perspective on the issue)

#palestine #israel #palestinian #palestinian genocide #israeli occupation #international law #human rights #anon #swawesome is pissed right off

12 notes · View notes

feynites · 7 years

Note

I had a thought earlier and thought I'd shoot you an ask about it: Do you have any tips on getting better at world-building (I think you're great at it btw)? Also, have you always liked world-building, in itself? I find myself often using worlds other people create, because I'm not very good at creating/thinking of my own, and was wondering if that was lazy of me? Just was wondering what your opinion was, on all that! Just food for thought. c:

Thank you! I’m glad you think I’m good at it!

World-building is a very interesting subject, but it took me a while to even really appreciate what it was. I’ve also spent a lot of time in other people’s worlds and environments, that’s pretty common among fanfiction writers, but I wouldn’t consider it lazy. Not unless you think any fiction set in our world is also lazy. There will always be parts of a story that some people are better at or prefer to focus on, or still need to build up their skills at. It’s normal.

I think a few things are very key to good world-building, though. Or at least in my experience, it’s the stuff I’ve figured out that’s helped me the most.

1. Nothing is original. You might not be entirely sure of where an idea has come to you from, but at the end of the day, there are only so many facets to human existence out there. Our imaginations only carry us so far, and our ideas come from the people around us, and also from their ideas. Artists draw from the things they see and experience, and use references to make stuff more realistic. So do writers. Do not worry that your stuff is unoriginal. Doing your best to abandon that fear is one of the biggest favours you can do for yourself as a writer; there’s a difference between similar concepts and ideas, and plagiarism, and only plagiarism is really a problem.

2. Nothing is without real-world context. This is related to the above. The things you make are coming from somewhere, and that means that they will have implications and real-world parallels. It pays to stop and consider where you’re getting your ideas, and what those ideas are implying about the world around you, too. In order to write stories, you have to be willing to take the stuff of your daydreams, and hammer it out into a narrative. It’s like turning a hunk of rock into a gemstone. You have to cut pieces out, decide what to reshape, what to keep, and what to throw away. If you can’t attack your own presumptions about the real world, you’ll have a harder time shaping a consistent fictional one. But also, at the end of the day, a rough diamond and a faceted one are both still diamonds. People will often be able to tell where you’re pulling your ideas from, so what you say about certain subjects can still have an impact on real-world concepts, and on your readers.

3. Let your setting be bigger than you. When writing, it’s extremely easy to get caught up in your own ideals and frames of reference, and that can mean that you design a world that acts more like how you think it should, rather than how it would. Worlds are big, and to some extent you can mitigate this by being aware that there is more going on than what you’re describing - that your story’s perspective is limited to the characters and events in it, and that contradictory things or mysterious unknowns still linger in the wider scheme of the setting. Your characters shouldn’t know everything that you, the author, knows, and you, the author, shouldn’t know everything about the world, either. An exhaustive list of details can even work against you, because it makes it trickier to keep track of what all your characters do and don’t know as well.

4. Big events are great, but cause and effect is better. When you look at history, you can see the way certain figures and events impacted one another, and connected together to get people to their ends or beginnings. A common mistake in world building is to take the big events - wars, coronations, the fall of empires, the rise of them, etc, etc - and just throw them into the setting without much thought for how they all interact with one another. But it’s like… if you have a nation that’s got a standing army, that’s expensive. Most nations have very small armies of professional soldiers, and instead tend to temporarily conscript people to bulk up their armies in times of crisis, because someone who is busy training and fighting isn’t doing other vital work, like raising livestock or farming crops or building homes, making babies, running households, etc, etc. But they still need to be fed and clothed and offered some kind of shelter from the elements, provided with equipment and a certain degree of entertainment, and things like that. Professional soldiers can spend their time focusing on being the best fighters they can be, so there’s an advantage to it, but you also need to justify having them around, especially if the rest of your country is having to work overtime to keep them fed. So a nation with a big standing army is going to be a nation that finds a lot of reasons to go to war - war lets you bring home spoils, lets you raid someone else’s farms to feed your soldiers, and expand your territory, and tax or enslave conquered peoples, and so on and so forth. You can start your world-building at the point of ‘I want this nation to have a big army’, or you can start it at the point of ‘I want this nation to be war-like’, or somewhere else on the chain of events - but certain things will also imply certain other things. It’s best to be aware of what those elements are when you’re laying out your setting. If you make a nation with a big army that is ‘peaceful’, you either need to explain how that works, or else people will probably think that the reputation is inaccurate (and that’s fine, too, as along as you’re willing to create a nation with one hell of a propaganda machine instead). But if you have a warlike nation, then there will also be other nations that have taken the brunt of its actions and conquests. So you will do better to let a few key traits expand into their implications, than to try and railroad everything into a framework that doesn’t flow naturally from those things. Because if you have your big nation with its standing army and militant inclinations, every other part of the world is probably going to be impacted by its quest for expansion, and if they aren’t, you need to be thinking about why, or else the pieces of your setting won’t fit together very well.

5. Avoid the Golden Mean Fallacy. The Golden Mean Fallacy, also known as the ‘argument to moderation’, is the idea that the perfect solution to any problem lies in compromise. But thereare some situations where saying ‘both sides are in the wrong’ requires a lotof false equivalents or narrative contrivances, even though people often tend to think that this is the most reasonable or neutral stance to take as the sort of arbitrator of the setting. Approaching societal conflicts in your world-building withthe idea that compromise is an ideal solution can actually be really offensive, though, and less ‘neutral’ than beneficial to aggressive qualities in the setting.For example, if one group is trying to commit genocide against another, looking at it and going ‘okay you guys want to live, but these other guys want to killyou, so I think the solution here is to just let them eradicate your culture –that’s really what they’re objecting to, anyway, and then you get to live andthey still get to destroy you, everybody wins!’ is not something you want to present as a fair solution. Sometimes people are just plainly in the wrong. That said…

6. Nevermake any culture/race/ethnicity/etc ‘evil’ in your stories. Doesn’t matter ifit’s orcs, robots, aliens, faeries, or what-have-you. The ‘savage tribe ofmonster people’ or Always Chaotic Evil Race™ is a bad trope and it needs to godie in a fire. If you want an ‘evil group’, you will do far better to alignpeople based on something like ideology or political corruption than race, geography, or traits theyare born with. There are other tropes along these lines that should be avoided, too, in fact there are more of them than I could successfully list in a timely fashion. As a general rule, though, if taking your world-building principles and applying them to real-life groups would result in an appalling statement, you should either change it, or else work it in as a form of propaganda and prejudice which you’re well aware of. That’s the difference between something like ‘mages are the most dangerous people in Thedas’ versus ‘the Templars believe that mages are the most dangerous people in Thedas’. One is you, the writer, making a blanket statement that some groups of people are just born dangerous, whereas the other is you, the writer, creating a scenario where prejudice exists in the setting.

7. Taking something out is often harder than adding something in. For example, building a setting without something like sexism or racism is usually much more complex than building a setting with something like magic or dragons or something. Fantastical elements are flexible, and you can shift the rules of them around to suit your needs without too many people crying foul. Whereas something like sexism is built into a lot of aspects of our society, and sinks into things that many people don’t even think twice about. Trying to create a fictional world where there is no sexism or history of it is, therefore, very hard, because you have to learn as much as you can about the ways in which this prejudice impacts our society and our presumptions, and then try and extrapolate how that would change everyone’s behaviour in a different world. And what you don’t change will immediately tilt your setting towards being the kind of place where biased presumptions are true facts of nature, rather than being a place where bad attitudes merely exist among the people and cultures there. This applies to basically everything, by the way, although it’s usually the most glaring when someone decides that they don’t want to deal with X kind of bigotry, and think that just going ‘it doesn’t exist in this world’ is the simple way out. (It’s not, the simple way out is to go ‘it exists in this world just the same way it does in ours, but I’m not focusing on it’.)

8. Keeping track of things is more important than knowing them off the bat. Everybody knows you’re making stuff up. That’s what they came to this party for. Inconsistencies can happen, but it’s also entirely possible to get so caught up in the planning stage that you never actually do any writing. So a good compromise between spontaneous invention and consistency is to just note the things you add in when you add them in, and then figure out how they might impact the other elements in your story, and set aside potential consequences in case they’re interesting or useful later on. Editing is your friend, and ‘I don’t know, let’s think about it until I do’ is also a vital element to incorporate into your thinking.

9. Be aware that you can mess up, and probably will. In order for any story to be inclusive of a wide enough range of people and cultures to make a whole world, it’s going to require you stepping outside of your own experience, or incorporating stuff that you have only a limited amount of knowledge on. You may very well fuck this up. This doesn’t mean the attempt was doomed, and it doesn’t mean you’re bad at world-building, and it also doesn’t mean that you have to defend your mistake in order to keep your setting from being deemed a worthless heap of junk. Your honour doesn’t ride upon whether or not you can make a convincing argument as to why your intentions outweigh the unintended implications of your actions. If someone points out a mistake, you should think about the ways you can go about handling it and/or fixing it. Maybe you just suddenly made your virtuous heroic group a lot more shady than you thought. Maybe you have to abandon a plot twist you were originally angling for. Maybe you have to make your narrator a lot more unreliable than you initially planned. There are solutions, and most importantly, you gotta listen to the people in the real world whose cultures or traits you borrowed from for your story. Just like when you borrow anything. If it’s not yours, you need to respect that and be mindful of how you use it.

10. Have fun. When you make a new world, there should be things in it that you love. That speak to your delight and sense of wonder. These are the things that often help the most when you’re deciding what to actually make in your world. You want unicorns? Put in unicorns. You want talking dragons? Put in talking dragons. Just think about how they would work, and how people would react to them, and how having them around might change the way the world operates. A lot of stuff will build naturally out of that.

I hope some of this helps!

#Anonymous

46 notes · View notes

johnhardinsawyer · 7 years

Text

The Only Label that Matters

John Sawyer

Bedford Presbyterian Church

10 / 8 / 17

Philippians 3:4b-14

Matthew 3:13-17

“The Only Label That Matters”

(How Do You Self-Identify?)

Well, it’s been a sad week in our community. The TCBY store on South River Road has closed. That’s right – the store that claimed to sell “The Country’s Best Yogurt” is no longer selling anything. Just so you know, TCBY was not named “The Best” by any official yogurt-making or yogurt-tasting groups. Nor was there any official nation-wide proclamation in which someone spoke for the entire country, declaring that TCBY was “The Best.” Nope. They gave themselves the title. According to the “Fount of All Knowledge,” known as Wikipedia, TCBY used to stand for “This Can’t Be Yogurt,” but – because of a lawsuit – they had to change it. So, they went big and self-identified as the place that sells “The Country’s Best Yogurt.”[1] It’s funny, sometimes, the way we label ourselves. . .

If you were asked to label yourself, based on who you think you are or who society says you are, how would you self-identify? You might not start by saying that you are “The Country’s Best ‘Whatever’,” but you might say something about who your family is, what your ethnic background may be, where you are from, where you went to school, or what you do for a living. Labels like this can be helpful, sometimes – they can help us understand a little bit about one another. Someone might self-identify as a doctor or a teacher or a lobster fisherman, but they might also be a mother or a father, a poet or a veteran, or a barbecue master or a world-champion juggler. You can put big stock into the labels that define you, but most of us are way more than any one label.

The Apostle Paul had a whole list of labels that could have defined him. In fact, he gives that list in today’s reading from his letter to the Philippians. Paul had quite a pedigree: he was from a religious family, descended from the small – but fierce – tribe of Benjamin (who could trace their roots all the way back to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob). He was a religious leader in the Jewish faith and followed every letter of the law of Moses. He was so passionate about following the law that he had even oppressed and pursued and imprisoned people whose beliefs were not up to snuff, religiously speaking. To people within the Jewish faith – of a certain, strict persuasion – Paul was a really good person. He was “blameless, without fault.”[2] (Philippians 3:4b-6) Paul very well could have been labeled “One of the Country’s Best Jews.” He might have even given himself that label from time to time.

Paul had every reason to boast and be confident because of his status – the labels he had received by checking all of the right boxes, religiously and socially speaking. . . But then Paul met Jesus, and Paul came to the realization that all of the things which had seemed so valuable and important to him didn’t add up to a hill of beans. The word that polite Bible translators use to describe all of the things that had previously given Paul’s life meaning is the word “rubbish.” But in the original language, the word that Paul uses here is the word for the kind of stuff that gets thrown out in a bag of dirty diapers, or scooped out of the kitty litter, or picked up by a dog walker whose dog makes a “deposit” on someone’s lawn.[3]

“[W]hatever gains I had [because of my social status],” Paul writes, “these I have come to regard as loss because of Christ. More than that, I regard everything as loss because of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and I regard them as rubbish – skubalon – in order that I may gain Christ.” (3:7-8)

“So you can take my family name,” Paul is saying here, “all of my awards and advanced degrees, my reputation, all my years of thinking that I was doing the right thing – and you can throw them out the window. Because none of that stuff is important to me any longer. In fact, when I think about it, all of the time and energy I spent on all of that stuff embarrasses me now. It offends me. I have gladly thrown it away because compared to knowing Jesus, all of that other stuff doesn’t matter anymore. I have put it behind me.”

I am sure that there were some things that Paul wanted to put behind him – some labels he wanted to remove from his past. At one point, back when Paul was known as “Saul” – he had stood by and watched as some people were killing a man named Stephen. The scriptures tell us that Saul held their coats and approved of what they were doing because Stephen was a follower of Jesus.[4] Saul felt he was justified, but really, he was an accessory to murder.

There are those who self-identify in certain ways – those who hide behind their labels and will sometimes use those labels as a defense. People self-identify as being part of one group or another and use that to justify all kinds of things – even violence.

A few years ago, a young man named Jason was passed over for a job down in Virginia. He became convinced that this had happened because he was a white male and then he read some things on the internet and became further-convinced that the white race is somehow being targeted for genocide. This is not true – not in the slightest – but the labels that Jason used on himself made it feel true. And in this day and age, “feeling” is often wrongly equated with “truth.” Jason says that he is not a white supremacist. He’s just pro-white.[5] He claims there is a difference between the two. But sometimes the labels we place on ourselves don’t have clearly defined edges. One label can slowly bleed into another without us knowing. Anyway, Jason organized a rally for white people in his hometown of Charlottesville at which people were hurt and a woman was killed. He says all of this is someone else’s fault – the fault of black people and women.

Sometimes, our labels become our idols and we worship them. We even make sacrifices to them, as if the ways we self-identify somehow give us power. The Bible has more than a few things to say about idolatry, but Paul sums it up in one word: “Rubbish!” Because there is only one true God who exists and only one true label that matters. It is only by God’s grace that we come to know this. I hope and pray that Jason will come to know it.

In today’s reading from the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus went to be baptized. He didn’t self-identify as the “Messiah” or “Son of God” when he went, though. John the Baptizer knew who Jesus was and would have prevented him, saying “I need to be baptized by you [Jesus]. . .” (Matthew 3:14) But Jesus insisted, and he humbled himself, and was baptized by John in the Jordan River. As the story goes,

When Jesus had been baptized, just as he came up from the water, suddenly the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, the Beloved, with whom I am well pleased.” (3:16-17)

“This is my child. I love him. I am pleased with him.”

When someone comes to be baptized, we believe that they are marked with a sign – a label, if you will. And this label from God reads, simply. “This is my child. I love them. I am pleased with them.” This holy label is permanent. It is a mark that won’t come off in the wash and there is nothing that will completely cover it up. This mark is, in large part, invisible most of the time. There are times when it becomes faint or worn, times when we forget about it, but it is always there.

Many of you probably know the story of how Paul, back when he was known as Saul was going along the road to Damascus, on his way to arrest some followers of Jesus – and how, suddenly, he saw a bright light and a voice said, “Saul! Why do you persecute me?” (Acts 9:4) In that moment, something within Saul changed – he realized that everything he had been doing against the church of Jesus was wrong. He also realized that even though he had been a sinner his whole life, Jesus still loved him. He became aware of God’s grace for the first time. When Saul – completely blinded by his experience on the road – finally arrived in Damascus, he regained his sight and he was baptized. After years of thinking that he belonged to God based on who his family was or how much he thought he was doing to be faithful, in his baptism, Saul found that all of the old labels no longer mattered. God had wiped them away and had given him a new label – a label of love and light and hope and peace and healing and forgiveness and reconciliation. God had given him a new identity – a new way to self-identify: “I am God’s child. God loves me. God is pleased with me.”

Because of this grace, from then on, Paul only wanted to know Jesus. He gave his life to Jesus and this is what defined him. This is the label that he wore – the sign to the world that this, and only this, was the label that mattered. “Christ Jesus has made me his own,” Paul says in today’s reading. (Philippians 3:12) “And I am going to live the rest of my life trying to embrace this label – this new identity. I will press on until the end because the end will be glorious.” Paul didn’t always get it right. He knew that he was a sinner and that he fell short all the time, but he knew that Jesus loved him even when he did fall short. This is the kind of grace that we receive when we belong to God. If only we could be this gracious with one another.

The first time I remember reading today’s passage from Philippians, I was in a dorm room with a group of guys for a college Bible study. We spent a lot of time talking about how Paul used the word skubalon for “poop,” and we thought that was awesome (and hilarious – boys will be boys, after all). I was in that Bible study for a whole year and got to know those guys pretty well, but later, one of them (we’ll call him Joey, because that was his name) asked my roommate if I was a Christian. Thankfully, my roommate said something like, “Joey, you were in a Bible study with John for a long time. You should know.” I was hurt. I had thought Joey was my friend. Why would he ask such a question? “Am I a Christian?” It seems that Joey was using a certain set of theological labels – a certain set of religious boxes to check – to ask, not really if I was a Christian, but if I was his kind of Christian, because to Joey, his kind of Christian was the only real kind.

I was upset about this for quite some time, but then I remembered my baptism. I remembered that I belong to God, that God loves me, and God is pleased with me. I also remembered that Joey has been baptized, too. He belongs to God, God loves him, and God is pleased with him. Our baptism is something we hold in common. This label that we share is a bridge that spans the theological divide between us. Maybe someday, Christians like him and Christians like me can find common ground and meet in the middle of that bridge.

I’ll close with this. . . It’s not every day that a preacher has the privilege of preaching on the occasion of his or her own child’s baptism. This might be my one and only shot at this. I do not know what kind of person Samuel will grow up to be – what sort of labels will be placed upon him by the world or what sort of labels he will place upon himself. There are good labels and there are bad labels, after all, and I’m sure that Samuel will have his share of both. My one hope in the midst of all of this is that he will be taught and he will remember the only label that matters – the sign and seal that he belongs to God, that God loves him, and that God is pleased with him. No other label matters more than that.

Sisters and brothers, remember: you, too, belong to God, God loves you, and God is pleased with you. Christ Jesus has made you his own. No other label matters more. . .

In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

------

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TCBY.

[2] Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979) 45.

[3] Bauer, 758.

[4] See Acts 7:54 ff.

[5] https://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/626/white-haze?act=2#play.

0 notes