#like i have my philosophical issues with the country for sure but my base needs are covered and that means a lot as a parent | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

v-arbellanaris · 1 year

Note

Your da meta is amazing and very eye opening. All about Justina/magic/chantry really got me. And I had a thought, this belief that mages are devil like figures/are always vunerable to demons stems from the Chantry. I get it. But why the qunari believe the same thing? (The Qunari - Saarebas codex) It bugs me that people of a completely different culture with no previous contact to the Chantry went to same conclusion. They only conquered Par Vollen during 6th age. Part 1/2

2/3 During the Exalted Marched they lost possibly because of lack of magic on their side. Is it possible that they created Saarebas later? Also I always wondered if Tamasarans are not simply lying about many things just so people they raise follow orders. Like -magic must be tightly controled because its a tool of war (they borrow a chantry tale to justify it), Or: metal and swords are precious resource (lets tell soldiers that its their soul they cannot loose) Or sell, to make the thought of

3/3 becoming a Tal Vashoth mercenary so much unthinkable. They also lost the tome of Koslun in 7th age so they have to make up new wisdom instead of following it by the book? Not to mention the cutting out the tounges thing. Because mouth-sewing is even more of a nonsense. I mean, how would they eat? Did Koslun really write all of this? Wasn't he a philosopher and a poet?(qun being based a bit of plato's republic)Sorry this is so chaotic. Qunari-magic lore is giving me a headache. Any thoughts?

hello! thank you so much, i'm glad you're liking my meta!!!

it's not chaotic at all! i definitely get what you mean. this is gonna get a bit long so im going to tuck most of this under a cut!

from an outside perspective, i think the qunari are intended to draw a lot of parallels to the ottoman empire (especially pertinent considering real world templars), except there is - perhaps unsurprising, considering how much of qunari canon is established during da2, and world events that were happening on the time e.g. bush's war on terror etc - a lot of inherently islamophobic tropes built into bioware's conceptualisation of the qunari, which they later tried to backtrack on in DAI to some extent. but islamophobia is endemic to bioware's concept of the qun and qunari, and the reason that's so important to establish and understand is because it sheds light on what they intended the qun to represent. there was (and still is, in many circles) arguments around how things like sharia law and islam-majority countries are "backwards" and "barbaric" on many different issues, which are often used 1) to justify discriminatory laws, invasions, wars, political assassinations etc (by conflating islam with extremism etc) and 2) to detract from how the same problems also still exist in the west and are not "solved" or "over" by any means. homophobia, sexism, ableism, transphobia, anti-migrant sentiments, anti-native sentiments, antisemitic attitudes, antiblackness, colourism, fatphobia, etc are as present in countries like the u.s., the uk, as anywhere else, even if its dressed up differently. so understanding that sort of explains why bioware did what they did with the qunari - the qunari exist as a narrative tool to tell you: it could be worse. sure, the chantry locks up their mages in the circle - but it could be worse! they could sew their mouths shut and lead the mages around on a leash. sure, the templars kill civilians seeming to aid mages - but it could be worse! the ben-hassrath exist. etc etc. the qunari exist as an ideological bogeyman; the islamophobic and orientalist tropes it draws on reflect the time most of this canon was written in, and are therefore essential to the narrative purpose the qun is supposed to embody, as far as bioware is concerned.

i do agree the way bioware written them is just… very aggravating. i think essentially, you can play it a lot of different ways, including the way you've suggested, though i would need to think through the potential implications more considering the tropes & cultures the qunari draw on, to make sure im not feeding into the racist & islamophobic narrative that bioware uses for them since at this point, the parallels can't be avoided unless you're writing the qunari from scratch. for example, in your above suggestion, my immediate thought was abt the tome of koslun. the tome of koslun's contents may be based on plato, but the reverence it's treated with and the general... everything else about it reminds me of the qur'an. the qur'an can be memorised & recited from memory by people (google tahfeez for an explanation, but most muslims know a handful of the shorter chapters) and a lot of care is taken when copying the qur'an; copies of the qur'an are supposed to be identical, and those that are not cannot be used for recitation. so i would hesitate to say that the qunari simply made up a bunch stuff and claimed it was from the tome of koslun, because it's a big religious taboo to do similar things with the qur'an.

and there's actually a fantastic thing here, which i've reblogged before, suggesting a rewrite for the qunari which is written by a muslim, which ive always liked! and it's certainly more thought through than anything i've got atm lol

like ive been tossing up a few ideas myself, to try and... rather than rewrite the qunari, to reframe them. i think da2 offers a lot of opportunities to go "well varric lied" and i admit, im not above taking advantage of the narrative style to suit my own purposes. like of course there's all this weird islamophobic bullshit with the qunari; varric is talking to cassandra, the right hand of the divine. ofc he's going to appeal to stereotypes the chantry has about the qun in his story. i'm still trying to piece together how i would do that, though, and where/why i would make changes.

specifically wrt to the saarebas, i had wondered whether i could make it something they do specifically to thedosian mages - tevinter mages caught in battle with seheron, for example. bull, after all, makes it a point to note that qunari can also be elven or human or even dwarven, but in da2, every saarebas we see is as non-human as the arishok. southern mages (circle mages at least) go their entire lives terrified of who and what they are, which makes them dangerous to themselves and also to others, because they're more susceptible to demonic influences (which! not true! but i think it would be interesting to have the argument from the qunari that the circles & chantry propaganda are breeding grounds for abominations because they're prisons, rather than mages themselves being the issue) (compared to, maybe, a qunari mage - mage being a dedicated position just like ben-hassrath or sten, treated without any stigma). tevinter mages are outright dangerous to them, actively wanting to harm them, and so "typical" saarebas treatment - though, i'd also omit the mouth sewn shut thing for similar reasons - is more like... prisoner of war treatment (which is not MUCH better tbf)? especially considering the qunari use "bas" for people outside the qun but qunari mages are called saarebas, it's always struck me as a bit weird since qunari mages are still... part of the qun? so. dangerous thing, for mages existing outside the qun, like circle mages or apostates or tevinter mages, but not their own mages? idk tho, im not committed to anything yet lol

#asks #i actually dont know if this will be helpful to you but im also working on it still sfljsadfj #vee rewrites da #i suppose ??? dskfjg #EDITED FOR SOME CLARITY ALREADY SORRY

13 notes · View notes

rosehipmarmalade · 1 year

Note

Hi you don't have to answer this but what exactly do you mean when you call yourself a socialist? I'm asking because i've seen multiple definitions of socialist floating around and now i'm not sure which one is the right one

hii! no that’s okay i wouldn’t have put it in my bio if i didn’t want to answer questions like this!

i do understand that the word can have a lot of different associations based on political climate etc. not to mention the fact that the ideology itself also has different branches, which might be why you’re seeing different definitions.

i can only really tell you from my own experience, what i personally associate with socialism. to provide context: i was born and raised in denmark which, unlike what a lot of americans seem to believe, isn’t actually a socialist country, we very much have a private market, but we do have a history of socialism and a welfare state build on socialist ideologies etc.

in short, socialism is the belief in a bigger welfare state as opposed to the private market. as an ideology it came to be as a direct response to libertarianism. where libertarianism focuses on the individual, socialism focuses on the collective.

i call myself a socialist because i believe in the need for the collective to assure no one gets left behind. we all pay our share, those who have more pay more, and as a result we all get a fair chance. education paid through taxes alone assures that everyone gets equal access to education, in the sense that it’s not your parents’ income that determines the level of your education. we all pay our share so that no one dies (!!) bc they couldn’t afford health care. we can all get the help we need via social income if we experience health issues, unemployment etc.

imo, it’s the belief of the collective taking care of each other as opposed the rich getting richer and hoarding the money for themselves. like it’s the only ideology that actually seeks to deminish the polarisation of the rich and the poor.

in theory, socialism seeks to obsolete inherited capital, and i do still believe that it does so more than any other ideology, but in reality you’re still born in to privilege etc.

this is obviously based on my own experiences with socialism and not an in-depth explanation. idk if that was what you were looking for. if you want to read more on the theoretical and philosophical aspect of it, you can definitely look that up etc. but i’d be happy to answer any questions i can :-)

#it’s currently 2 in the morning so i’m sorry if it makes no sense #feel free to ask for any clarification etc.#ask

4 notes · View notes

mylieutenant · 3 years

Text

REDUX: Roy regaining his vision was the right narrative choice [META]

The idea that Roy should have stayed blind as punishment for his crimes is far too prevalent, and I believe this misses the point of Roy’s journey. Here’s why.

As a preface, I’m going to add a bit of a disclaimer that disability as a punishment is a bit of a sensitive issue, and I don’t subscribe to the mentality that disability is a valid form of punishment (or inherently a punishment altogether). This stems from prior discussion so I think it’s important to set this straight.

In the context of the series, Truth takes away something a person values (most often an ability of some sort) as toll for performing Human Transmutation and seeing past the Gate. The characters often interpret it to be their punishment for committing the ultimate taboo, and readers often interpret it as narrative punishment for hubris. I will be discussing it in that context regardless of my own moral stance. To counter that, though, the series introduced theme that every character who lost an ability gained something unexpected out of their adventures, implying that disability shouldn’t be interpreted as unequivocal punishment.

When viewers say “Roy should have stayed blind”, they are often using disability to punish him. Furthermore, they are using it to punish him for the one crime they did not commit. In fact, he categorically refused to perform Human Transmutation, against great temptation. He did the right thing there. If we take this into account, the narrative would be enacting revenge, not fair retribution, if it left Roy blind because of a misguided sense of karma. This is exactly the sort of revenge Arakawa consistently painted in a negative light. A clear message this series sends is that an eye for an eye accomplishes nothing, and that the cycle of violence must be broken. Scar is a good example of this. Winry breaking the cycle of violence drives this home. Roy refusing to kill Envy after being so close is the last straw. This series pushes the idea that revenge is fruitless, violence brings more violence, and it expects the viewer to internalize that. Using disability as retribution for an unrelated crime was never to be expected.

Now, Roy has committed acts of true evil. It is not my intention to justify, condone, approve or downplay the Ishvalan genocide (nevermind that there are rarely similar clamors for punishment regarding other war criminals like Riza and Hughes). Arakawa makes it clear Roy and Riza will face justice. That said, whether one as a bystander thinks that they can be forgiven, that is entirely personal, and not the topic of this meta. Arakawa doesn’t condemn the reader for either opinion. I’ll go as far as to say that we’re forced into the role of bystanders. I’ll go a step further in that the viewer’s say is irrelevant altogether - Roy’s actions are powerful because they are not dependent on forgiveness. It’s not something he’s after, not something he believes to be entitled to. He’s doing the right thing for its own sake. That’s all there is to it. He’s not seeking for redemption - at the end of his road, he still expects he’ll be condemned.

An argument can be made that it is perhaps unfair for a man to choose his own path to justice. However, by this point, the Military dictatorship is likely to continue if Roy doesn’t accomplish his goals. If he never makes it that far, his crimes may never be recognized as such. He’s digging his own grave, and doing so with his eyes open (pun intended). I don’t think it can be said this is an easy fate.

I will admit that I’ve seen interesting takes on how a blind Roy could have been given a fitting ending, but in all of these, Roy still finds a way to be of service for the greater good. And thus, in this angle, the permanent loss of his vision has little narrative significance that isn’t achieved by letting him regain his sight (unlike, for example, Edward never recovering his leg and keeping the one Winry made for him to stand on). We got the one moment of Riza being his eyes, which made a great point, but making it permanent would have implications for Riza that I don’t believe would be for the benefit of her journey.

Sure, there’s plenty a blind Roy could do for his country, but there’s no denying this path would make his way forward harder. This is also why I’m so Brotherhood-critical on this subject - Brotherhood glosses over the massive difficulties a blind man in the Military would have to go through to have the amount of power Roy would need for his plans.

The different endings (Manga vs. Brotherhood) give a different take on Roy before accepting the Philosopher’s Stone. I originally wrote this meta based on the manga, but it didn’t occurred to me then that Brotherhood alters these interpretations. The manga shows us a lonely, defeated Roy that doesn’t know how he’ll push forward. Meanwhile, Brotherhood has him surrounded by his trusted ones already determined to act for the betterment of Ishval (and he also asks Marcoh to restore Havoc’s mobility, but that’s mostly irrelevant to the point and meta for another time).

Brotherhood’s fate for Roy is the generally preferred version because it’s so feel-good, but I personally find that Roy being offered a new purpose makes Marcoh’s gesture, and Roy accepting it, all the more powerful. It also gives him a bit more justification in doing so too; if Roy doesn’t know what will become of him, he’ll be more willing to accept to use the Philosopher’s Stone. Either way, the point still stands that him using the Stone is part of a deal.

On that matter, ambiguous morality exists within the FMA-verse and general usage Philosopher’s Stone is the perfect example of this. Often the takeaway is that using the stone is inherently evil, but it really isn’t quite that simple. It’s been used for evil, and the Elric brothers refuse to use it to gain their bodies back, but Alphonse and Hohenheim recognize that these trapped souls have agency and allow them to act for the greater good. This sets precedence for Roy’s decision to be potentially interpreted as a morally sound alternative. Him using the Philosopher’s Stone for the benefit of the reconstruction effort is a pact. He’s vowing to be the voice of the Ishvalans trapped within it. So Roy’s trade-off might be morally ambiguous, as he still derives personal benefit from it, but it’s not devoid of integrity. He’s not being “rewarded” with his sight, but it’s a bargaining chip in a deal that will come at great personal cost.

I think the true power of this moment stems from the fact that we don’t really know what happened next. Arakawa cleverly cuts off this narrative before Roy has to deal with the opinions of those who actually matter - the Ishvalan people. Scar and Miles have their stance, but we don’t know the rest. The implication Arakawa makes with Scar and Miles is that any Ishvalan reconstruction would have to feature Ishvalan voices on the forefront, and for all many of the aspects of their portrayal are a bit questionable (meta for a different time) this is something she got right. In the end, it would be the Ishvalan people’s choice how to deal with Roy’s crimes against them. I respect her narrative choice in not taking this away from them (and by extension, from real-life minorities that have gone through a genocide) by deciding Roy’s punishment/justice should be left for the future.

So that’s where this leaves us. Roy regaining his sight is the narrative refusing to use his blindness as revenge or punishment for a crime he did not commit, instead leaving his fate to be decided by the people he oppressed, and letting him go forward with willingly marching to his own grave. I don’t forgive Roy for the part he took in the Ishvalan genocide and I don’t make excuses for him. The question is, on the grand scheme of things, is it worth for the story to take narrative revenge on him at this point? What are we, the bystanders, accomplishing by enacting punishment on a man that has so clearly changed for the better?

#fma meta #meta #roy mustang #roy mustang meta

57 notes · View notes

earths-roots-grow-up · 3 years

Text

Headcanons on Russia’s and Prussia’s relationship with France.

Russia:

I think that in the XVIII century a large chunk of Europe had a crush on France. French culture was widespread among European courts and the language was being used to communicate in a similar manner English is used today. Frenchness was just very IN at that time.

Those countries included Russia. At that time Peter the Great was westernizing his country, and injecting French-ness into Russian lives was a part of this process - Versailles and the French court impressed Peter immensely when he went to visit France and when he came back home, he began emulating many things he observed in the western country. Language, customs, widespread mirrors everywhere, architecture, gardens. You name it.

High-born Russians would talk to each other in French and give themselves French names. Lets note that French wasn’t the only foreign language that was widespread in Russia, so were others, like German and Latin [mostly used by the academia.

“(...) of all the languages which began to have currency in eighteenth-century Russia, it was French that acquired the greatest social, cultural, and political significance,even if it was not always so widely spoken as German“.

The two next generations of Russians grew up within this Francophile culture and viewed it as something natural, from their perspective it was no longer an exotic fashion, just the way thing always were. Therefore, this was something more than just a fleeting fascination that lasted as long as Peter ruled - and had lingering influence on Russian culture.

“The most important stimulus for the development of French-speaking in Russia, though, was the use of French as a court language from around the middle of the reign of Peter’s daughter Elizabeth (1741–61), who had learnt it in childhood from a French lady at her father’s court.“

And so it went on from there: “At the beginning of the nineteenth century, the Russian nobility still preferred French to Russian for everyday use, and were familiar with French authors such as Jean de la Fontaine, George Sand (etc.). The influence of France was equally strong in the area of social and political ideas. Catherine II's interest in the writings of the (french) philosophers of the Enlightenment (...) contributed to the spread of their ideas in Russia during the eighteenth century.” and “ During the nineteenth century, travel in France was considered a form of cultural and intellectual apprenticeship. “.

(source) So the interest in French ideas and culture was strong in the second half of the XVIII century and in the XIX century.

So in other words, Russia had a crush on France - it was a total puppy love mostly based on superficial things, like aesthetic, nice smells and pretty, elegant European opulence but most of all: France was the ideal of what Russia was trying to become, the epicenter of European-ness, the “civilization” and Ivan was in the middle of this lowkey cultural revolution in which he was trying to re-invent himself as a modern, “European” country. So I think this crush was very much one of those "I wanna BE YOU" types of crushes, he was head over heels for what France represented - that’s why this hit so hard.

There was some more personal stuff there too, like France's eloquence, his literature and philosophy. Enter a lot of perfumed love letters! Even when the crush slowly withered away Russia still felt - and feels - strong admiration for France and honestly enjoys his culture a lot.

France himself enjoyed the crush but wasn't really that interested in reciprocating - as mentioned above, large chunk of Europe was also crushing on him due to his culture just being in fashion, so it's not like Russia himself was standing out. But they did become friends and still have good personal relations with each other. They have a lot of passions in common, such as ballet, art, music, opera, Romanticism etc, so they still enjoy talking about this stuff together. It’s not a Deep friendship where they trust each other, don’t be fooled, they don’t trust one another at all! But they do like hanging out.

I also HC that the way both French and German were important in XVIII century Russia (as cited above: French with greater cultural significance and German more widespread) is representative of him catching feelings for both France and Prussia at this time, tho one of those wasn't just a crush.

Prussia:

My non-canon-approved hot take here is that I don't think him and France were ever friends. The exact opposite of that even.

It's true that Frederick the Great also had this hard-on for the French, and in effect Prussia speaks and writes excellent French. But after Frederick William II took over the throne, he took back all those Francophile preferences and began promoting German literature and language instead - something the educated classes of Prussia were thankful for. So because Russia shared his ruler's fascination with France his interest outlasted Peter the Great and became a more prevalent part of Russian culture for a long time, while Prussia never shared Fredrick’s fascination and therefore it got overturned as soon as the new king sat on the throne.

And that makes sense, bc in general Germans and French weren't very friendly with each other during their history. German- French enmity, also called the hereditary enmity, is an idea introduced in the XIX century, and it states that those two forces are natural enemies due to their inherently different goals and incompatible interests. Due tho this they keep bumping against each other throughout the ages. You can see echos of this sentiment it in the Napoleonic Wars, Franco-Prussian War, WW1, the Treaty of Versailles, WW2 etc. France was also the country that stood in the strongest opposition to the German Empire being created, so a big issue for Prussia.

It’s important to mention that this German-French enmity was often used as a propaganda tool for wars and simplified the complex relations between those two groups. Of course it did, even Austrian/Prussian relations weren’t ALWAYS bad, even tho they were called ‘the biggest enemies’ by historians.

It is believed that the enmity ended after WW2 and no longer is a thing. To me that is a pretty great example of Germany taking over the reign and replacing Prussia. Prussian/France relations were bad, but German/France relations are pretty darn good. And it makes sense, because Prussia had different goals than Germany has, and they are very different individuals. I see France and Germany as friends due to their shared work in UE, tho I’m not sure if they would be something more than just work friends.

Anyway, this is Hetalia and not a historical-political deep dive - to me what counts in Hedcanon context is the general feel throughout history: were they generally allies or enemies? Were their interests clashing with one another or were they compatible, most of the time at least? The whole idea behind this “inherited” enmity is that French and German interests were incompatible, so it had to end with a conflict. And they did, many times over. I feel like the importance of the Napoleonic wars especially is often undervalued here - it was a HUGE conflict that would have a lasting impact on their relations, way bigger than the Wars for Austrian Succession, which are often cited as proof of their friendship. But they were an outlier in general Prussian/French relations.

That’s why I think Prussia and France are not, nor ever were friends, they view each other as enemies and dislike each other. Tho during the reign of Old Fritz their relationship was warmer and more amicable than during other periods, considering they actually had similar goals and fought together for a change - mostly because that was convenient for then, not due to some preexisting friendship. But I do like the idea that during this time they had some kind of difficult comradery going for a brief while and there was this fleeting “maybe in another reality we could be friends” vibe.

Due to the bad history, Prussia's dislikes of France can be seen in many small things that irritate him, like he just detests Francis' need to show opulence, his over-the-top rococo aesthetic and cuture-esque fashion sense, hight emotionality drives him bonkers and even the pastel flowery color palettes he often wears irk him. And don’t even get his started on the Revolutions! He’ll talk your ear off.

Tl’Dr: So Prussia and France don't like each other and are generally bitchy and passive-aggressive with one another. Russia and France are friendly and good acquaintances, while not exactly close. Russia just likes him - he still admires a lot of things about French culture, enjoys the language, cuisine, architecture, fashion etc, and used to have a crush on him.

Rusprus take:

Prussia in a confident, self-assured person, but when it comes to France, he can be surprisingly self-conscious. He still remembers that crush Russia used to have on him and WHY he had it - because of many characteristics that France possesses, but Prussia doesn't. Like being romantic and sentimental, sensitive, emotionaly open, appreciative of beauty, artsy etc. Sometimes Russia finds that cute and endearing, bc it makes him feel wanted, but sometimes it's just... ridiculous.

APH Prussia: What do you wanna watch tonight, Vanka?

APH Russia: Hm... maybe that movie, Marie Antoinette?

APH Prussia: Ugh OF COURSE you wanna ogle HIM!

APH Russia: W... what.

APH Prussia: France! You wanna ogle that cheese-smelling frog-eater!

APH Russia: What... no! Gilya, Gilyushka, Gilynechka! That's absurd, I just want to watch a pretty period drama!

APH Prussia: Don’t you “Gilynechka“ me! And as if that's not enough...

APH Prussia: She was AUSTRIAN

APH Russia: Omg. Kill me now. When you have almost 1000 years of history together then even picking a Netflix show can be a minefield!

Anyway, they end up watching the movie but Prussia roasts everything in frame :D

79 notes · View notes

infinite-xerath · 3 years

Text

Runeterra Retcons 1: Thresh

This is something that I did today. I plan to make this an on-going series (might even take it to YouTube someday if I get the nerve to share my voice), but for now have it as a tumblr post.))

The world of Runeterra is one of the most interesting and complex fantasy settings in modern gaming; a fictional realm bustling with fantastical beings, characters, and a wide variety of plot points offering near endless potential for story-telling. The story of League of Legends is not, in fact, a singular narrative, but rather a collection of different stories spread out across a variety of fictional countries, continents, and even dimensions.

Runeterra as we know it today wasn’t always like this, however; in 2015 Riot Games opted to effectively reboot the lore of their world to be rid of the more restrictive plot elements like Summoners and the Institute of War to allow themselves more wriggle room to tell the stories they wanted to tell. While the decision to effectively make League of Legends non-canon to its own story was initially controversial, the writers of Riot Games have effectively proven themselves extraordinarily capable of using this newfound freedom to its full potential… For the most part.

With a retconned world came the need to retcon characters; Riot has made a substantial effort in the last few years to reimagine and redefine the backstories of the iconic Champions to make them fit into the new narrative, albeit with mixed results. Let’s face it: no writer is perfect and hindsight is 20/20, so a number of characters throughout the years have been left with less-than-stellar backstories compared to most of the roster.

Welcome to Runeterra Retcons, a series in which I’ll be analyzing some of the more controversial champion bios in the game to pick apart the good, the bad, and the horribly missed opportunities. With all that out of the way, let’s begin, shall we?

Episode 1: Thresh

Thresh is at once both an interesting and a bland character. He’s arguably one of the more iconic characters in the game, to the point where he’s practically become the unofficial mascot for the Shadow Isles. In-spite of this, I’ve long felt that Thresh is one of the most awkward fits into the region; before we can discuss the problems with his current lore, however, we first need to address Thresh’s backstory pre-retcon and see if we can analyze the core of his character.

Insert original lore here

So, we can see the concept behind Thresh’s character pretty easily: he’s a jailor who loves tormenting his charges, so much so that he continues to do so even after death. If you were to describe Thresh in a single word, it would probably be “sadistic.” Unfortunately, the original lore doesn’t give a lot beyond that; not where he’s from, not when he died, not even where his prison was located. The bio itself literally says that no one knows the details, and while that does add a faint air of mystery to the character, it doesn’t do much to tie him into the faction he’s supposed to represent: The Shadow Isles.

With that out of the way, let’s now take a look at Thresh’s new bio and see how Riot decided to change him after the retcon.

Insert new lore here

Alright, so, there’s a lot to unpack here. Perhaps the most notable change is that Thresh went from tormenting people to… Tormenting “living relics.” The relics are offered no further explanation in the lore or given any prior context. There’s just… A mirror with a soul in it. There’s a sentient book hidden down in the vaults. For some reason, the monks of the Isles even decided to stash a living person down there because he infused his body with raw magic. Why? Who was this person? What did he do to end up in chains? If this was a dangerous mage, wouldn’t it be better to build a proper prison for him rather than stuff him in a vault full of powerful, dangerous artifacts?

There are so many mysteries here, but perhaps biggest one is this: why was Thresh changed from a warden of people to a warden of relics? Why did they feel the need to turn him from a jailor who enjoyed tormenting his inmates to a curator that was slowly corrupted by the very magics meant to help him do his job? Well, I believe that’s meant to tie into the change made to the Shadow Isles themselves, or rather, the Blessed Isles.

While we never had much info on what the Isles were like before becoming an undead haven, a lot of the lore suggests that they were effectively a paradise, hence the name “Blessed Isles.” This was a place without war, without starvation, without corruption. Naturally, there would be no criminals in paradise, and so this of course means that to make Thresh a warden of things that are inhuman… At least, this is the thought process one might have until they introduce the mysterious regenerating mage, but I guess he’s meant to be one bad egg amidst the crowd, assuming he even came from the Isles at all. Again, it’s never really elaborated on.

So, while the change does make a degree of sense, it kind of feels… Flat. I mean, a guy who enjoys tormenting prisoners in their cells to hear their screams sounds a lot more terrifying than a guy who just stops his sentences halfway through to spite a book. Also, the fact that his lantern just becomes a seemingly endless vessel for souls because of the Ruination is a little silly; like, I know the Black Mist does all sorts of nonsensical things to matter, but the fact that an ordinary lantern gets turned into a relic arguably far more dangerous than anything Thresh was ever guarding seems kind of backwards, at least in my opinion.

So, how can we change this? How would I, personally, retcon Thresh if given the chance? Well, there are a lot of base elements that I would keep, but also some key components I’d like to alter. I’ve written up a short bio of my own for you all to enjoy, so without further ado…

In an age all but forgotten to history, there existed a realm known as the Blessed Isles. Hidden away from the world by a veil of magical mist, the Isles were a place of peace and prosperity; a land free of war, corruption, plague and misery. This paradise was ruled by an order of sacred monks devoted to learning and enlightenment. It was within this paradise that Thresh was born and raised by a pair of humble farmers, growing up surrounded by nature’s bounty.

Though expected that he might follow in his fathers’ footsteps, Thresh showed an aptitude for learning from an early age. In-particular, Thresh seemed fascinated with matters of philosophy; the nature of the soul, morality, and other complex subjects were frequent on the boy’s mind. This attitude quickly earned Thresh the attention of the brotherhood, who invited him to join their order as soon as he was of age. Thresh agreed without hesitation, leaving the farm behind to study at the Isles’ monastery.

For many years, Thresh studied under the tutelage of the order, distinguishing himself from his peers for his ability to grasp complex philosophical issues. Though acknowledged by his teachers, Thresh was met with looks of envy and scorn from his fellow students; rather than let himself be disheartened, however, Thresh instead took an interest in the root of their envy in scorn. Upon approaching his elders with such questions, Thresh found himself being led to a secret chamber deep beneath the monastery, guarded by powerful wards and runes. It was here that Thresh learned the truth of the Blessed Isles.

Thresh watched as one of his fellow pupils stood surrounded by figured in ominous robes, chanting an ominous spell in unison. Thresh’s teacher explained to him that this was ritual had been used by the order for ages to ensure that the Isles flourished. Evil was present in all humans, and so the only way to ensure it did not corrupt their paradise was to extract it from the soul, and seal it away. As the ritual drew to a close, Thresh saw the essence of all the other student’s hatred, envy, malice and warped desire ripped from his body, and placed into a special lantern made to contain it.

Thresh was intrigued. He approached the lantern without hesitation as the other boy was escorted from the chamber, and to his surprise, he heard voice whispering to him from within. The monks explained that though the evils of humanity could be removed, they could not be truly discarded. They needed to be contained, and more than that, they needed a warden to watch over them. Thresh volunteered in a heartbeat, and the monks smiled, pleased by their pupils’ devotion.

What they did not know, however, was that the whispers in Thresh’s mind had already begun taken root. From that day forward, Thresh vigilantly stood guard over the lantern, watching each successive cleansing as it took place. Each time, the wicked essence in the lantern grew stronger, as did the whispers in Thresh’s mind. He began to dream of enacting twisted torments upon the monks, the other disciples, and even his own parents. Slowly but surely, the brotherhood noticed a change in Thresh’s behavior. Fearing that he himself would be subjected to their cleansing rite, Thresh stole the lantern and fled the monastery.

The monks chased Thresh for days, but their search was brought to an abrupt end when strange ships arrived on the Blessed Isles: something Thresh thought impossible. From the safety of the cliffs, Thresh watched in delight as a soldiers led by a foreign king massacred his fellow monks. Their screams were music to the warden’s ears, and as the chaos spread, Thresh found himself reveling in the suffering of all who fell to the foreigners’ blades. Even at the cost of his own life, Thresh dared to move about the battlefield, searching for survivors left in the king’s wake only that he may snuff out the remnants of their lives himself.

Finally, as the screams of his victims began to subside, Thresh turned his attention to the heart of the Isles. From there, he saw a cloud of pure darkness rushing to meet him, and opened his arms wide to embrace it. In that moment, all the wickedness trapped within Thresh’s lantern was freed, bound to his soul through the power of the Ruination. Thresh emerged a being of pure maliciousness, and his lantern, now empty, would serve as the perfect vessel to enact his twisted fantasies.

Thresh now roams Runeterra as an avatar of sadism, bringing pain and misery to all unfortunate enough to cross his path. He stalks his victims and torments them by slowly stripping them of their sanity, before finally prying their souls from their bodies with his wicked sickle. If you hear the sound of chains in the dead of night, run… Though it may already be far too late.

So, what did you think? Now, it’s at this point I feel I need to clarify something: I’m not trying to bash on Riot’s creative team, nor am I saying that I can definitely make a better version of someone else’s character. Hell, I’m not even really saying that my version of the story is flawless; it would probably need to go through several more rewrites before I’d ever consider publishing it as canon, not that I have the power to do so, of course.

Rather, I wanted to take a closer look at Thresh’s character and how well his current lore represents him. I said earlier that Thresh is at once and interesting and a bland character. I consider him a little bland because you can sum him up in a single word: “sadistic.” He has no goals and no motivation other than to cause pain and suffering. Even the other undead of the Shadow Isles typically have some kind of agenda, even if it’s only to spread the Black Mist’s influence. Thresh doesn’t care about that; he just wants to see you writhe in agony, both before and after death. I’d argue he has more in common in with League’s demons than the other specters of the Isles, but it’s BECAUSE Thresh is undead that he has so much potential for an interesting backstory.

The main points I wanted to emphasize in my rewrite are: expanding on the magics that corrupted Thresh into being so sadistic, giving his lantern some greater significance in the story, and replacing the vault full of otherwise pointless macguffins with something a little more sinister that gives the Blessed Isles a hint of dichotomy. Riot loves adding a little morally grey to all their characters and factions, after-all.

Anyways, what do you all think? Could Thresh’s lore be improved, or do you all like his story the way in currently is? Lemme know down below, and I’ll see you all next time!

#Outofpower #League of Legends #Runeterra Retcons

29 notes · View notes

dwellordream · 3 years

Text

“The most important thing to understand about most polytheistic belief systems is that they are fundamentally practical. They are not about moral belief, but about practical knowledge. Let’s start with an analogy:

Let’s say you are the leader of a small country, surrounded by a bunch – let’s say five – large neighbor countries, which never, ever change. Each of these big neighbors has their own culture and customs. Do you decide which one is morally best and side with that one? That might be nice for your new ally, but it will be bad for you – isolated and opposed by your other larger neighbors. Picking a side might work if you were a big country, but you’re not; getting in the middle is likely to get you crushed.

No. You will need to maintain the friendship of all of the countries at once (the somewhat amusing term for this in actual foreign policy is ‘Finlandization‘ – the art of bowing to the east without mooning the west, in Kari Suomalainen’s words). And that means mastering their customs. When you go to County B, you will speak their language, you wear their customary dress, and if they expect visiting dignitaries to bow five times and then do a dance, well then you bow five times and do a dance. And if Country C expects you to give a speech instead, then you arrive with the speech, drafted and printed. You do these things because these countries are powerful and will destroy you if you do not humor whatever their strange customs happen to be.

...Ah, but how will you know what kind of speech to write or what dance to do? Well, your country will learn by experience. You’ll have folks in your state department who were around the last time you visited County B, who can tell you what worked, and what didn’t. And if something works reliably, you should recreate that approach, exactly and without changing anything at all. Sure, there might be another method that works – maybe you dance a jig, but the small country on the other side of them dances the salsa, but why take the risk, why rock the boat? Stick with the proven method.

But whatever it is that these countries want, you need to do it. No matter how strange, how uncomfortable, how inconvenient, because they have the ability to absolutely ruin everything for you. So these displays of friendship or obedience – these rituals – must take place and they must be taken seriously and you must do them for all of these neighbors, without neglecting any (yes even that one you don’t like).

This is how these religions work. Not based on moral belief, but on practical knowledge (I should point out, this is not my novel formulation, but rather is rephrasing the central idea of Clifford Ando’s The Matter of the Gods (2008), but it is also everywhere in the ancient sources if you read them and know to look). Let’s break that down, starting with the concept of…

Knowledge. For the Roman (or most any ancient polytheist) there is never much question of if the gods exist. True atheism was extremely rare in the pre-modern world – the closest ancient philosophy gets to is Epicureanism, which posits that the gods absolutely do exist, but they simply do not care about you (the fancy theological term here is immanence (the state of being manifest in the material world). Epicureans believed the gods existed, but were not immanent, that they did not care about and were little involved with the daily functioning of the world we inhabit). But the existence of the gods was self-evident in the natural phenomena of the world. Belief was never at issue.

...This, of course, loops back to one of my favorite points about history: it is generally safe to assume that people in the past believed their own religion. Which is to say that polytheists genuinely believe there are many gods and that those gods have power over their lives, and act accordingly.

In many ways, polytheistic religions, both ancient and modern (by modern polytheisms, I mean long-standing traditional religious structures like Hinduism and Shinto, rather than various ‘New Age’ or ‘Neo-pagan’ systems, which often do not follow these principles), fall out quite logically from this conclusion. If the world is full of gods who possess great power, then it is necessary to be on their good side – quite regardless of it they are morally good, have appropriate life philosophies, or anything else. After all, such powerful beings can do you or your community great good or great harm, so it is necessary to be in their good graces or at the very least to not anger them.

Consequently, it does not matter if you do not particularly like one god or other. The Greeks quite clearly did not like Ares (the Romans were much more comfortable with Mars), but that doesn’t mean he stopped being powerful and thus needing to be appeased.

So if these polytheistic religions are about knowledge, then what do you need to know? There are two big things: first you need to know what gods exist who pertain to you, and second you need to know what those gods want.

Two things I want to pull out here. First: the exact nature and qualities of the gods do not really matter, because remember, the goal is practical results. Crops need to grow, ships need to sail, rain needs to fall and the precise length of Zeus’ beard is profoundly unimportant to those objectives, but getting Zeus to bring storms at the right times is indispensable. The nature of the gods largely does not matter – what matters is what you need to do to keep them happy.

Second, you may be saying – you keep ramming home the idea that you have to cultivate all of the gods – what is this ‘pertaining to you’ business? What I mean by this is that while the polytheist typically accepts the existence of vast numbers of gods (often vast beyond counting), typically only a subset of those gods might be immediately relevant. Some gods are tied to specific places, or specific families, or jobs, or problems – if you don’t live in that place, belong to that family, hold that job, etc., then you don’t need to develop a relationship with that god.

...Now, normally when you ask what the ancients knew of the gods and how they knew it, the immediate thought – quite intuitively – is to go read Greek and Roman philosophers discussing on the nature of man, the gods, the soul and so on. This is a mistake. Many of our religions work that way: they begin with a doctrine, a theory of how the divine works, and then construct ritual and practice with that doctrine as a foundation.

This is exactly backwards for how the ancients, practicing their practical knowledge, learn about the gods. The myths, philosophical discussions and well-written treatises are not the foundation of the religion’s understanding of the gods, but rather the foaming crest at the top of the wave. In practice, the ruminations of those philosophers often had little to do the religion of the populace at large; famously Socrates’ own philosophical take on the gods rather upset quite a lot of Athenians.

Instead of beginning with a theory of the divine and working forwards from that, the ancients begin with proven methods and work backwards from that. For most people, there’s no need to know why things work, only that they work. Essentially, this knowledge is generated by trial and error.

...I have found that students often find that this form of learning sounds very silly to them, at least at first glance. But we actually discover only a very few things theory-first, from first principles. Instead, we learn most of what we know this way. This is how you learned to farm, to cook, to work metal, to make crafts. This is how we learn most things in our daily lives – if not by trial and error directly by ourselves, then by benefiting from a chain of knowledge that eventually ends in someone else’s trial and error.

Crucially, for individuals living in a traditional, pre-modern society, this process of hard-won trial-and-error knowledge passed down through generations is how most of them know everything: how to do their jobs, live their lives, act on a daily basis, how the world works, all of it.”

- Bret Devereaux, “Practical Polytheism, Part I: Knowledge.”

#practical polytheism #polytheism #bret devereaux #history #ancient #writing #greek #roman

7 notes · View notes

aboutlouishofmann · 4 years

Text

White Lies Magazine Interview with Louis Hofmann

How long are you in England for? I'm currently staying for six weeks, but I've already been here for five and a half so I'm only here for a couple more days before heading back to Germany for rehearsals for my next film.

Really, or did they kick you out because of Brexit ?

No they didn't (laughs) - and luckily there are no real changes until December so I can get in and out without a problem. I'm not exactly sure what will change for Germans anyway, if there are new regulations or if it will be the same in terms of travelling. It's gonna be really crappy for basically everyone leaving the UK - if you consider that someone who has a band for example and plays a tour around Europe will need to pay or be passport-controlled with their equipment every time they cross borders. It might not matter for a big band like Coldplay but small bands will have a lot of trouble with that.

Actually Coldplay has suspended their tours until they can find a way to make them sustainable.

I know and I think that is amazing!

How are you with environmentalism, are you active?

I wish I was more active to be honest, because I have a platform on Instagram which I could use a bit more - I'm just always quite scared when it comes to posting because I know that so many people then talk about it and judge me for what I have posted. l don't have an issue with taking a political side on an I think fairly easy topic to take sides on when it comes to the environment. But then again it's this general thing of posting something and l know 400.000 people will look at it or make up their mind about it - have an opinion and voice it. It's just something that scares me, so that is holding me back a bit but I'm trying a bit more.

Understood. But isn't it the same with doing a movie or starring in a TV series, you put it out there and everyone is going to judge you ? Even more people than just your followers as a matter of fact.

Of course. But that's my job. That's what I love to do, that's what I've chosen to do. I have not chosen to be someone who is followed by 400.000 people on Instagram, that sort of just happened.

It's a side effect.

It is and I am grateful for it but it also scares me (laughs).

That makes sense. But do you even realise how famous you are? I remember I walked into someone's house in Korea last year and they were watching "Dark" that very moment, all fans of yours.

I don't think I get it. No, I don't quite get it. When I talk to casting directors about my value on the English language market they will eventually tell me that it's not as profound as they want it to be to play a main role in an English language feature film. You have to separate between being known from something and being so known for quality that you have international value - having sort of a critical acclaim and value in different countries. I don't think I'm there yet and would only consider myself famous, which is already weird to discuss and acknowledge out loud. For now, to be fair, I'm just the guy from "Dark".

It did reach a bit of an iconic status though, also your character. Everyone is going to remember you for that yellow raincoat.

I hope they won't only remember me for only that (laughs).

Do you wear a yellow raincoat in private ?

No, there is no opportunity for me anymore to wear a yellow raincoat. It's not possible. But let's get back once more to environmentalism. One thing is stating your opinion on social media but the other thing is when it comes to acting myself, to change my daily life to help the environment. I would say I'm quite conscious about it and avoid flying and consuming local produce. Focus on quality and try to not waste products.

Who is inspiring you?

Leonardo Dicaprio for example. But I don't know if he necessarily acts himself that way, but he does something about speaking out about it - using his figure and position as an activist to talk about it. I quite like that.

He is doing one thing I could personally not do however. Speaking out for something and then doing the opposite in his private life. And that judgement is what I'm afraid of. I'm afraid of getting perceived as a hypocrite. But then again being perceived as that in terms of climate change doesn't really help because it needs to be spoken about and maybe you do not do as much as you talk about it. But at least you raise awareness and take even just a small part.

I absolutely agree. I think we need to re-think that whole concept of hypocrisy in this thing because if he reaches a couple of million people and they are changing something about it - even if he is doing the opposite - he is still doing a lot of good with it. Even though he is a hypocrite I think we need to redefine what it means - at the end of the day we will all be hypocrites because no one is really going to be able to live completely sustainably, we can't think in those absolute terms too much. Everyone needs to start with one thing - picking their battles. Focus on plastic for example, we may get better at disposing of it while still being bad in terms of traveling for example, but that is okay, we can only do one thing at a time.

Don't you think it's crazy that in relation to something like the coronavirus pandemic, pressing and tangible as it affects us now - everybody is afraid, everyone acts, the government acts and everyone is doing their part. Then there is climate change which is more intangible because it's still far away and people don't really care about it - I think this is a problem. Why only act about something that only affects yourself? It's quite selfish and stands for a lot more than only this.

That's it. We went really deep pretty quick didn't we? The most pressing question however is - how often do you cry watching movies ?

I do like to cry when I watch films, because I think I'm quite empathetic so I can relate to the characters a lot. I don't often do it but I really do not mind - it means I'm involved in the story. I like crying in movies. Therefore I know it has touched me somehow.

I have a weird relationship to crying in movies, I like doing it but there is a certain place where I cry much more easily - on planes. It's quite strange actually but I get very emotional when I'm up in the air.

That's good, I guess? Have you seen the film "Click"? It's not the greatest film out there, it's with Adam Sandler. But there is a scene in the end where he (spoiler alert) dies. There is a remote with which he can forward his life and he fasts forward to the moment when he dies. It's very dramatic, tragic - almost pathetic and still I started crying because I imagined that happening to me and felt so sad (laughs).

This is going to be the headline: Louis Hofmann, the guy who cries at Adam Sandler movies.

I can imagine you being the guy who would make a head- line like this.

Have you ever died in a movie?

[START OF SPOILER]

Yes, I've died in "Alone in Berlin" and also in "Prélude", where my character hangs himself in the end.

How was that for you?

I was not very attached to myself at that moment. I mean eventually it gets cut out. So the moment I actually die they cut off and it turns black. I still enacted the scenes but it was weird, it was more of a physical thing than an emotional one when I acted it. It's just sometimes with very physical scenes - the dynamic approach and action can be so mentally and intellectually exhausting that there is not much room left for emotional attachment. It didn't feel I was dying myself. It did hurt though, I had the rope around my neck.

[END OF SPOILER]

Good one. Do you believe in fairytales?

No I don't. But I do like "Bojack Horseman" though because it seems so dumb first but turns so philosophical.

In general, what is happiness to you?

I don't know what it means to me but I know when l feel happy - that's when I'm grounded, when I'm self-assured and when I feel like I'm really being myself. When I reach that state I feel happiness. Sharing that happiness with someone is what's most important. Happiness is truly being yourself.

Very profound answer. How is your work- life balance, are you always working?

I think it's quite okay. The only thing I kind of need to improve is that - when I work I work 100% and I tend to think about the year in little phases. I work then I'm free, then I work then I'm free. And I always only take really care of myself in the times when I have spare time. When I work my health and my hobbies - I just do not look at that. It's all about the work. I want to get somewhere where I can balance those things better.

The thing I really wanted to touch base with you on was the future of movies. We are talking about technology, virtual reality, 3D. Would you like to do some work in 3D?

I would only like to do something in 3D if the new technology elevates the film to another level and makes sense story-wise. I'm not a fan of it only if it looks good. If it helps the story to evolve into something bigger then it's okay. I'm an admirer of that old cinema look, of that really organic taste of a film. I don't know if I would like to act in a VR film. What I don't like about new technologies is that the acting itself and the characters and craft are kind-of left behind. In the foreground it's only the technique, the focus is too much on the visual aspects rather than the screencraft.

I totally understand what you're saying - but if you think about it this way now - people probably said the same thing about colour films in times of black/white films because colours took away the attention from the acting. I think it's about what we are used to. If we say in a couple of years it's normal to consume everything in 3D and VR, do we still think about that?

I mean it surely is incredible what they have achieved and still continue to achieve with 3D and VR. Remarkable how they portray an illusion and tell a story in such a unique and involving way. I'm just always afraid that if you want to tell a character based story with that technique, the characters and the acting will be left behind due to the sheer amount of attention the technical stuff needs from the cast and the team. But of course it's fascinating and intriguing. And since we sort of got used to seeing films in 3D, maybe that's also gonna happen to VR.

How do you think we will consume movies and series in 20 years or how does acting actually change? Looking at "Death Stranding", a video game by Hideo Koji-ma that stars an impressive cast with Mads Mikkelsen, Lea Seydoux and Norman Reedus, to name but a few. They are in this game as actors through 3D scanning. Imagine this fast-forwarded 20 years.

I really hope that traditional acting doesn't die. I don't know - in 30 years I'll probably think differently but right now I think you can not replace something natural with something computer-generated. If the technology evolves, maybe it will be possible.

Anyway, how does it feel like to see yourself in a sex scene?

(laughs) I've always said I separate myself from the character when I watch my films. It's the character who gets naked and has sex, it's not me. It's just when you are around people who you know personally, it might get awkward, for example with my mom. You just have to evaluate if nudity and sex is necessary for the story and the character - if it is, it's not tough to watch.

It's a powerful meditation on how to detach yourself from something, isn't it?

For sure, it doesn't always work though.

#Louis Hofmann #dark netflix #louishofmann #darknetflix #jonas kahnwald #jonaskahnwald

83 notes · View notes

funkymbtifiction · 4 years

Text

Hi again, sorry to bother you.

I submitted this post because I have a few questions (I was typed ISFP 9w1).

I have doubts about Fi-Te.

▪Fe/Fi :

I mean, When I read Fi and Fe descriptions, I relate to low Fe better. I need your view on that.

I relate to the chamelion effect that is often associated with Fe.

Unlike Fi-doms who behave the same everywhere, my behavior changes from group/person to group/person, and the group dynamic and atmosphere indirectly affects me and my performance. <- 9 does this, also 3 fixers do this.

I’m usually reserved when alone, but with energetic people/groups I become more energetic, smile more and check myself less and get comfortable. While if I go into serious or cold groups, I become like that. And If I get uncomfortable vibes from a group, I may get uncomfortable as well, or I might think my presence is not desired or not important, so I try to minimize my interaction with that group. I try not to force myself upon people even though feeling excluded seriously bothers me. <-- mirroring the group this much again, suggests 9 (and 3?); you are deliberately avoiding conflict through changing to fit the group.

It’s like I have no specific personality or characteristics. I explain my personality with doubt but try to include all functions. I envy people who maintain the same personality and energy-level with everyone or stand up and rebel against things they don’t agree with even when they’re alone. <-- 963 or 936 tritype confirmed

On the other hand, I try to maintain the group harmony and not bother others even when I internally have problem with something or don’t agree with them. I don’t rebel against the majority unless I have no other choice. <- 9 core

I assume being liked or appreciated by others matters to me a lot. As a kid and teen, I acted on this need (indirectly) by getting good grades or doing my homework and being nice to teachers. I wasn’t aware of it much. As I grew up, I became more dependent on other people, their vibe, their motivation or inner thoughts and their views. I miss my teen years because of that. <- numbing out and ignoring things as a teen? again, 9

I am not social expert. I suck at manipulating others or changing the group dynamics. I can’t “MAKE” people think/do something. I can’t stand my ground really well. I don’t even know how to comfort people. <- sounds like Fi-dom, not Fe

My view on good or bad is also relative. I can say pros & cons for things and I rarely view something as pure good or pure bad (It happens but it’s rare).<- Fi-dom has more nuance, is willing to give more benefit of the doubt, and is not as quick to judge people as Fe, since... well, Fi is subjective, ruminating, and inward based.

I also have problem defining when I “should” hold my ground and when I should stay back and keep quiet. <- lack of boundary awareness, a 9 issue

I dislike selfish people who boss others, don’t do their share of work in the group or disturb the group harmony by bringing negativity or drama. <- personal assertion of an ethical preference + 9 hatred of drama and negativity

Unlike Fi-dom stereotypes, I try my best to avoid feelings or emotion. So I try my best not to bother others to avoid potentially nasty confrontations. Every type of feeling is toxic and unhealthy to me. I’d rather deal with data, impersonal facts and professional relations than complicated people, drama or feelings. I’d rather be around impersonal, just, uncomplicated and direct people. <- 9 to the max; let’s not be unpleasant, let’s not let in anything that makes me feel uncomfortable, let’s suppress and ignore feelings as much as possible, let’s not hang out with annoying or troublesome people... this is not Fe, this is a 9 refusing to engage with anything that makes them uncomfortable

Fe-like grips for me happen during three situations. a)Failure or being hopeless about major future goals (which I try to avoid), b)Loss of loved ones or being away from them for a long time, c)Feeling excluded or being in a toxic/complecated/dramatic/unjust environment <- the first sounds like inferior Te frustration

Being in grip makes me sensitive, hopeless and paranoid of other peopl’s intentions. I then wish I could have more social skills and more connections/friends. <- Fe envy + 6ish disintegration

In general, I’m not an F expert and try to avoid that realm. But every once in a while, I wish I had more social skills, could open up to people and be cool around them. <- Fi-dom seriousness and detachment from others

________________________________________

▪S/N:

I agree with Se and Ni over their counterparts. I would be witty/argumentative and also more flexible if I had Ne.

But I still have trouble relating to Se, at least the stereotypes.

Sure, I wish I had more action, excitement and novelty in my life, and I might act on it some day (after reaching my professional goals), and I’m a visual/tactile learner and get bored by small details or impractical theories.

But still, I get uncomfortable dealing with the sensory (and social) realm for a long time and get sensory overload. I sometimes have trouble staying in the moment. Not to mention, I’m physically lazy and need someone more willful and energetic to initiate activities at first. And I’m somewhat of a homebody at the moment and bad which makes me relate to Se-aux even less.

Even my interests differ from stereotypical SP ones and look similar to Intuitive interests. I have little interest in watching team sports or car/F1 races on TV. I much prefer to learn about scientific facts, space, other cultures, different countries and their food/drinks and architecture, languages and different philosophical and psychological views and self-help stuffs. I often google things like that.

I do relate to Ni, as I have my goals/plans and, care about them and try to reach them (and would freak out if I couldn’t which means I lack flexibility about them).

Also, last minute changes of plans, or being kept in the dark about future or a project really bothers me. But I agree with you that having a cynical Ni might mean its position is not dom. Also, I’m not good at things like chess (find it boring), decision-making or guessing test questions (stereotypical Ni stuffs)

Based on the new info I added, Am I still Se-Ni?

... those are a lot of negative stereotypes about ISPs. An SP can sit at home on their butt and watch television all day long and never do anything creative with their hands, it does not disqualify them from being Se. An SP can be an avid reader and love learning about all kinds of things, it does not make them an intuitive. An ISP prefers to have a general idea of what they want and think before they act, it doesn’t make them an INJ. Basically, none of what you said disqualifies you from being an ISFP. I would look at Ne vs Se if you are still not sure, but I’m still seeing IFP 9.

________________________________________

▪T :

I do brainstorm things and read between the lines in my head. But I have little interest in sharing them with people or debating with people. Maybe I don’t debate much because of shyness. I also need time processing and analyzing the things being said, so I rarely challenge someone. <-- introvert, not a thinker tendency; high Ti knows what’s irrational without needing to process it, and will react accordingly by pointing out the illogical statement.

I’m more cynical than positive. If I doubt the truth of something or an statement or a program, I analyze and research about it if needed. I sometimes I argue with my family members or debate about social stuffs, taboo stuffs or some other stuffs. specially when I think what they think/believe is irrational. But I rarely target them directly or attack them about it, unless I know they’re thick-skinned and don’t make a big deal out of it. Also, I dislike it when people change a friendly debate into aggressive personal attacks. <- 9 avoidance of conflict / confrontation

When debating with my family, I use a mixture of facts and brainstorming results as debating tools. But In general I trust proven facts more than personal analysis and specially at school, I used to dislike too much theory, analysis and details. <- proven facts = Te, hatred of theory = Se/Ni

What makes me doubt being a thinker (or even a F-dom)? The fact that I rely on other people to describe myself and my self-worth. And the fact that A toxic atmosphere or exclusion can have impact on my mental health and performance. Also, my shyness and lack of assertiveness in social stuffs and being conflict-averse and fearing confrontations.

I think ISFP 9 is correct. Most of what you describe, as you’ve seen is simply being a 9, and you don’t have the kind of strong knowledge of Te/Ti that an ISTP or TJ would have.

#question #isfp #submission

23 notes · View notes

philosophycorner · 4 years

Text

A Hallmark Sophistic Tendency and More on Epistocracy

Sophism is when one reasons fallaciously in hopes of deceiving someone. In other words, it is when someone employs fallacious, yet convincing, reasoning to sway someone. In some cases, people with these tendencies will project by accusing their opponent of sophistry or they will employ a No True Scotsman in saying that their opponent cannot possible be a “real” philosopher. I do not take kindly to such ad hominem and that is why I discontinued the discussion. Some of you may have seen this in my opponent’s response yesterday. These issues are minor. The major issue is in how he defines words.

Sophists tend to define words by omitting the use their opponent is using. When I say voting rights infringe upon other more integral, unalienable rights like the right to life or healthcare, I am not at all talking about a negative right, as he defined, in where one can hypothetically defend their right using force. While this is a definition of a right, it is not the only definition on offer. A right is also a principle of entitlement, a positive right, and so, when I say someone has the right to life, what I am saying is that they are entitled to live, irrespective of what the Constitution says; the phrase right to life in The Declaration of Independence is described as unalienable, god-given if you prefer. While there are clauses attached to this entitlement, such as they are entitled to live given that they do not murder someone, my definition is just as valid as the one my opponent employed. The difference is that my opponent dismissed my definition in order to deceive his readers. That is to say nothing of the validity of the distinction of negative and positive rights; plenty of philosophers (e.g. Eric Nelson, Ian Carter, Henry Shue) do not think the distinction is valid or even necessary.

He, for instance, continued to accuse me of not knowing what rights are, as though definitions themselves do not describe words in a self-evident fashion. A right is sometimes synonymous with a certain entitlement, but not all entitlements, real or imagined, are rights. A man may feel that after dating his girlfriend for five years, he is entitled to have sex with her. Consent is still at play no matter how long a couple has dated and so, he is not entitled to have sex with his girlfriend; she is not entitled to sex with her boyfriend either. These are matters of consent and as such, it is a privilege that they grant one another. The right to life is self-evident as even the Declaration of Independence attests. I do not need to go any further on that.

In that same vein, he mentions consent of the governed and people providing healthcare and bizarrely asserts that taxation is a violation of bodily autonomy; he does nothing at all to ground this claim, but, ironically enough, begs the question. Under the current government, 100 million or so people forgo their voting rights every election and many more forgo their rights as it pertains to electing state and local officials on a year-to-year basis. This implies that the right to vote is not as integral as some argue and definitely not as integral as my right to life. I may willingly surrender my right to vote given that I’m not particularly drawn to any of the candidates; I will not willingly surrender my right to live, assuming I am not terminally ill or mentally incapacitated. I am entitled to live and that is an integral entitlement; I am also entitled to vote, but that is not an integral entitlement as I can willingly choose not to.

What I have proposed, as Plato and others before me have, is an Epistocracy. Also of note is that he flat-out asserts Plato was wrong without justifying it; that is more more evidence that he has presupposed his conclusions. It is not a soft tyranny as he claimed. It is rule of the knowledgeable. What I am basically arguing is that if a third of the population is not going to vote anyway, we should decide on which one-third that is. The one-third that I temporally want to exclude are the least informed and that is assuming that such people even comprise one-third of the population; they might comprise a smaller portion than one-third and as such, I can say that at least I am not excluding as many people as are currently excluded and who have been excluded, at times, with malicious intent. The least informed are individuals who have not learned to or do not care to think critically. Since they do not think critically, they are prone to ignoring crucial issues and engaging in cult-like, conspiracy-based reasoning. A White Supremacist, on paper, is entitled to vote, but since he votes to harm minorities, he should not retain that entitlement.

Felons are largely excluded from the political process because they surrendered that entitlement in breaking the law. So it is up to my hypothetical government to decide at which point someone has committed to all that is required prior to breaking the law. What separates the average White Supremacist from Kyle Rittenhouse? The question boils down to who is armed and who is not and who is willing to harm or murder minorities versus who is not. Who then is the ideologue and who is willing to act on erred convictions? Since there is no sound reasoning to justify racism, discrimination, and prejudice, then White Supremacists should not be entitled to vote. Since there is no way of predicting which White Supremacist will act on their erred convictions, they should not be entitled to vote. Full stop!

The consent of the governed does not reduce to mere voting rights. In being a citizen or legal immigrant in the United States, you have de facto consented to be governed whether you vote or not, whether you are entitled to vote or not. Our current government already excludes a large portion of the population due to criminal records, gerrymandering, and other forms of voter suppression. So there is no material difference in my saying that we should exclude certain people for reasons separate from the ones the government uses to justify their exclusion and disenfranchisement of certain voters. As I have shown, however, I think my reasons for excluding the woefully ignorant are far better than the reasons given to exclude an entire demographic in a certain district or most felons without distinction. The primary reason is that voting rights cannot be prioritized over unalienable rights, so if a person votes with the intent to harm minorities, the minority’s right to live supersedes the White Supremacist’s right to vote. If I have to ground an entire moral framework to prove that conclusion, then my opponent is basically arguing that the right to life is not unalienable and is therefore, a privilege reserved for some and not others.

All felons are not created equal. Sure, a murderer on death row has long surrendered his entitlement to vote. Someone wrongfully accused of a crime or someone serving a marijuana-related sentence should not be excluded. Yet, in most cases, no distinction is made between the former felon and the latter. Then there is the real crux: my exclusion is not permanent. You can be a White Supremacist today and not be one tomorrow. That means that you can learn why you are wrong about non-Whites and come to see common humanity in minorities. Any and all kinds of ignorance can be rectified given time, so it is entirely possible to justify a vote for any candidate in an informed manner. What my hypothetical government would guarantee is an informed voter who does not vote along party lines, who does not double-down on a quasi-fascist like Trump, who does not ignore science and the urgency of Climate Change, and so on. A more informed electorate is absolutely a good thing and the exclusion stemming from my hypothetical government is preferable to the extant exclusion in the current U.S. government.

In any case, this is why I refused to exchange further. Sophists define words by omitting definitions they dislike. They accuse, commit fallacies, and project their errors onto you. Ultimately, sophists tend to be disingenuous because they have predilections and surmises they think are self-evident and so they do not commit to the philosophical work of reasoning to their conclusion; this was observed in my opponent’s bizarre claim that taxation violates bodily autonomy and that the provision of healthcare, in where one is paid by the government, is also a violation of bodily autonomy. These conclusions are not argued for or justified in any way and entirely ignore state-provided healthcare in other countries in where people have consented to pay their taxes for sake of receiving free healthcare and tuition-free college educations.

I have reasoned to my conclusion. I have seen the real harm in letting ignorant people vote year after year; these people have been given no (dis)incentive to rectify that ignorance. So basically what I am saying is that if we disincentivize ignorance, people will want to become more informed. They would not call every disagreeable story about their favored candidate “fake news.” They would not go down the rabbit-hole of conspiracy theories. They would have good reason to change. I see nothing at all wrong with telling people this: if you want to vote, demonstrate that you are informed enough and empathetic enough to participate in this process because your vote has palpable effects on other lives. After nearly four years of suffering through the lack of empathy, apathy, hatred, and incompetence of the Trump Administration, I am more resolute now than I was two years ago: everyone should not be entitled to vote; only the demonstrably informed in the U.S. population should do so and as such, I propose Epistocracy, the rule of the knowledgeable as that incentivizes everyone to become more knowledgeable before casting a vote.

I will conclude by saying that the false equivalence he made between Epistocracy and tyranny can be dismissed very easily: Epistocracy does not permanently exclude anyone, so if anyone has an issue with being governed by the knowledgeable, then it is incumbent on them to demonstrate the aptitude to join the ranks of the knowledgeable; tyranny, on the other hand, excludes the governed and subjects them to any number of abuses. Epistocracy is not about abuse, but rather about preventing the abuse suffered by the more empathetic and knowledgeable at the hands of the cruel, apathetic, and ignorant. Perhaps we should want to exclude malignant Psychopaths, Narcissists, Sadists, and Machiavellians, most especially when they have dehumanizing and degrading views of people they do not agree with. This is beyond, “I do not like your voice” or “I do not like these people.” This is about people who speak harm and carry out actions consistent with dangerous and potentially fatal beliefs.

The United States cannot continue to tolerate such ignorance and it is clear that the entitlement to vote has fallen into the wrong hands. In the least, I can say what a lot of other people cannot say: I have proposed a viable solution. I also happen to think it is among the better solutions, especially in light of my opponent’s tacit anarchism and admiration for Capitalism. I will not challenge a sophist on such erred points of view, as they have already presupposed the conclusion; this is also painfully obvious in his ego-stroking as it pertains to Marxism. He has claimed to debase all of Marxism and this should not surprise anyone given that my opponent’s love for Capitalism entails feeling threatened by an anti-Capitalist like Marx. There is no argument to be had with such people. In any event, be mindful of the tendency to define words by omitting key definitions. Such an individual does not want a genuine dialogue; they just want to win. Nothing productive comes from that.

#philosophy #political philosophy #politics #epistocracy #voting rights #voting #marxism #epistemology #sophism

12 notes · View notes

purgatoryandme · 3 years

Note

Hello! I've been going through your replies lately and have noticed that you have provided some life advice in your past replies. Wondering if you would be able to help me out on this one? You seem very level headed :) Me and my friend recently got into a argument about politics - he has been becoming very conservative lately and i am very liberal and queer. We got into a disagreement in Nov last year and haven't talked since. I miss him and am dying to talk to him again. Any Advice?

It’s easy to be level headed in text replies because I’m forced to read what I write as I’m writing it sksksk. I also get to be vague since I don’t ever really have details on people’s issues, which I think makes me sound wiser than I am. This situation is pretty relatable and tbh, I’m never really sure what’s a good answer for it having gone through it myself with family members and coworkers. There are times that politics are just politics (when they are just differences in perspectives towards life and governmental involvement in it that are mostly theoretical or philosophical or genuinely debatable topics like the benefits of one kind of spending over another). At times like these you can just...not talk about them if you’re non-confrontational by nature. Or agree that you are fundamentally different people who will never agree on this topic, which is my personal fave when people get really heated. Or you can argue, as long as arguing isn’t something that will totally fracture your friendship. People are different and I think there’s a growing movement in Western society that kindof...doesn’t accept that people have different experiences and no one has to necessarily be wrong in their views and that arguing can be a great way to learn and diversify. A lot of people take arguing as a simple “you think I’m wrong and evil” and...yeah. It doesn’t go so good. However, there are also times where someone’s politics become more than that - when they personally affect you or people around you in a tangible way that is rooted in ignorance (when something is demonstrably wrong) or hatred (something meant to hurt or eliminate a specific group for the benefit of another). In the scenario that this person’s politics are core values, things that they consider part of their identity, and they conflict with your own core values...I don’t think a close friendship will ever really work out. However, when you’re young you pick up lots of things and try them on. Sometimes those things are the political perspectives of your parents or peers. If this is just a phase for them, or if it’s been something you’ve been watching them slowly slide into through internet circles, there’s a chance for open and honest discussion about why their politics hurt you. There’s a chance that you can also be patient with this person and support their core values that align with your own as they figure this out for themselves. Since you still miss them, I’m assuming that this is less a core value conflict and more of a ‘they tried on hard conservatism and found it justified their biases or boosted their personal feelings of self worth, never considering how it paints people like you’, and so I’d suggest trying to contact them about how their politics made you feel in a way that avoids accusatory language (”When you say you think that people should be able to evoke their religious freedoms to deny people like me access to necessities, I feel as if you value a stranger’s hatred of me over my quality of life. It’s difficult for me to equate religious freedom with my right to exist - I feel as if you see my presence as a political statement to be argued for or against”). You’d be surprised at the impact conversations like that can have, especially when you’ve been sitting on them for months. It’s never too late! Regarding that above bit of advice - depending on who stopped talking to whom re: who was angriest at the end of that disagreement, it’s possible that they’ve been waiting all this time for the chance to open a dialogue and understand what they did wrong (if you were the angry one). If they walked away and felt that you thought they were a terrible person, though, it might be best to be extra gentle in approaching them again with the fact that you feel their politics are harmful but you don’t hate them personally. In the scenario that this person is now an activist for hate - ie for dialogues or actions that are actively harmful (”I’d support kicking all immigrants out of this country. They don’t need to be here. Refugees are murderers!”), I don’t feel like mercy is ever truly an option. A lot can be said for dealing with hate with patience and teaching, but I’m not about that on a personal level. If they were still actively in your life, I’d encourage you to fight them and show them that behaviour isn’t ok. Since they aren’t, though, I’d turn missing them into mourning who they used to be and accepting that, while they continue to spill vitriol, they aren’t my friend anymore and may never be again. I might also consider getting closure (for myself) by telling them that I miss them but don’t want them in my life when they preach something so terrible, though this is risky in that it gives them an opportunity to reply and hurt you again. TLDR: if you feel like the differences between you two are more opinion based or philosophical, maybe being at odds will be good for the both of you. If you feel like they’re more fundamental, try opening up about why their fundamentals conflict with yours in a way that is more personal than it is ethical. If they’re preaching straight up hate, mourn them and move on.

#reply

3 notes · View notes

thiswaycomessomethingwicked · 4 years

Note

What do you think Napoleon would feel about the Le Pens? Like I know he’d hate their guts but the extent 👀

God fuck the Le Pens. I feel dirty thinking about them. (Though weirdly funny that Marine kicked her dad out of FN. Like you know you’re too deep down the rabbit hole of fuckery when Marine kicks you out. [and yeah, of course it’s all part of her image cleaning up gimmick. Wherein I’m sure she thinks the same as him, but is trying to “soften” the image of the party. And, based on the last election, it’s working. So that’s horrifying.]) All this to say: fuck the Le Pens; white supremacy etc.

Anyway - assuming we’re still going for “Napoleon from 1815 woke up August 22, 2020″ base for our thought experiments here.

Overall, yeah he’d think them short sighted, idiotic, and would probably have some elegant-yet-crude insults for them in Corsican. Let us take a brief, and not at all comprehensive, stroll down the Le Pens (and FN by default)’s terrible policies. Then I can scrub my brain out because they are absolutely foul people.

behind a cut because it’s long.

Economics: First off, Napoleon and I are the same in that we neither know anything about economics. He did not have a firm grasp on how the economy worked. Which I sympathise with, because it seems very fake and made up.

Anyway, he did a lot of modernization, raised taxes, created a lot of public works programs to stimulate the economy and improve connectivity (gotta build all the roads and canals. Actually though, as a public infrastructure keener, I support this). He did lay the foundation for the centralized bank of France. (Something Biddle would get all hot and bothered over. Nothing sexier than centralized banks.)

Napoleon also introduced a whole loan system for businesses to try and keep them afloat and improve local industry. He was keen on protecting property rights, um, tried to regulate the currency to protect it against inflation. Idk, he did other things that I’m not going to get into.

Comparing Napoleon’s hot economic takes from 1815 to 2020? A bit hard. So I’m going to guestimate on this.

I think, once he understood how the world functions now, he would be pro-globalization and the various free trade agreements that are in place (CETA, PCAs etc). He might disagree with details therein, but the broad philosophy is one I think he’d support.

I don’t know if he would be pro-single currency. I suspect he might be anti-the Euro, while still supporting the broad intents of the EU.

He would support a strong public sector - so government controlled postal service, utilities, schools etc. In that, and the anti-Euro view, he would align with Marine, at least. Not sure about her POS father.

No idea what his views on the Havana Charter would be. Probably mixed.

EU: I’ve touched on this before, I think Napoleon would be pro-EU, over all. He’d just think France should be the hegemonic power. Why isn’t France making all the decisions? This is dumb. Who does Germany think they are? Etc. Therefore, he would disagree with the Le Pens who think the EU is the anti-christ and the cause of everything bad that ever happened in France (I exaggerate, but they do blame the EU for a lot of things so you know, it’s not that much of a stretch).

Immigration: This is where they would diverge significantly. Like apples and moldy toast kind of different. I’ve touched on Napoleon’s immigration policy before, so I’m not going to wade into it again. But yeah, needless to say Napoleon would be like “let everyone come. They want to come to France? They are French. More is better. The end.”

The only thing is, he was very pro-assimilation. Not really into the “patchwork quilt” approach to the philosophy (and implementation) of multiculturalism. Which, to be fair, is a very modern view and not something I would expect anyone from 1815 to agree with, or consider a general good approach to dynamic, multicultural societies.

But yeah, the Le Pens whole moratorium on immigration, hatred of anyone foreign, that would be an anathema to Napoleon. He would vehemently disagree with that stance. Napoleon believed alloys were stronger. You took different people, boiled them down, and melded them into a unified French identity. That was his Hot Take on the matter. Again, pro-assimilation, which is an inherently conservative stance by 21st century standards, but a very average stance by early 19th century standards. His immigration and citizenship views were overall liberal for the time.

Indeed, the whole creation of a unified French identity was in its infancy during his life. He contributed heavily to it, but for his lifetime, identity was strongly linguistic and regional. You’re Gascon before you’re French, you’re Basque before you’re either French or Spanish, that sort of thing.

And of course, his views on this were heavily informed by his own experience and identity as a Frenchman and how it was received, or not, by his own people, as well as other monarchs and countries. (Tsar Alexander liked to brag that he spoke better French than the Emperor of France. And I believe the Times once called Napoleon a “Mediterranean mongrel.” Charming. So, he had a fun and exciting adventure in European class, ethnic and racial politics of the early 19th century.)

Napoleon would also disagree with the Le Pens that citizenship and nationality are indivisible. He was into the whole “if you decide you are French then you are French, no matter which side of the Rhine you were born on”.

Secularism: They’d actually probably mostly agree on this. In that religion has no part or place in government and there should be a clear and strong separation of church and state.

The banning of religious clothing, though, I don’t think Napoleon would support that. I would argue that he’d think it infringed on personal rights too much, and he was keen on protecting those. Like, his policy towards integrating France’s Jewish population was to try and assimilate them, yes, because he viewed everything as being consumed by the monolith that was the French Empire. But he wasn’t like “no wearing a tallit or kippah.”

Abortion: Guys, Napoleon is a culturally Catholic man from 1815 who thought women’s crowing jewel were her children and that France really needed to increase its overall population. I think we can all figure out what his views on abortion would be. Marine is pro-legality of abortion, but she personally is like “it’s eViL and a serious MoRaL IsSuE” etc.

Gay Rights: Napoleon’s whole political approach was to bring in the people on the margins and normalize them (assimilate; one of us, one of us) as a means to increase the base of the population who would support him. As he viewed marriage as a strictly secular, civil ceremony, and not a religious one, there could be a possibility of slowly talking him around to it. That said, he also viewed marriage as a declaration of intent to make many babies (for his army). I don’t think he’d be pro-queer couples adopting, no matter what. So, who knows.

That said, he wasn’t like “lock up the gays”. And as gay marriage is established in France currently, I don’t know if he’d be pro-abolition since it’s mostly a popular/accepted law and he was all about that sweet, sweet public approval rating.

So if he came around to it, it wouldn’t be for altruistic reasons. At the same time, he wouldn’t be like “make it illegal”. He was very “w/e just show up to work on time Cambaceres, jesus.” (Cambaceres: It’s midnight, sire. This isn’t normal work hours. Napoleon: SAYS WHO???)

Women in Politics: Well he’s obviously 100% against that. Ladies belong at home with the bebes. Le Pens, obviously, aren’t. Though Jean, I think, is like Trump where he’s pro his daughter being in politics (until she chucked him out of FN), but he would expect his wife to be a Proper Housewife. That weird conservative man thing about the role of wives and daughters.

There’s my fly-over guestimation of Napoleon v Le Pens

It’s very, very hard to figure out what Napoleon, a man born in 1769 and died in 1821, would think about politics, economics and society in 2020. I tried to gauged based on his broad, philosophical views and how he acted as ruler. But he was also someone who was very analytical and would be capable of understanding the world as it is today and the realities that are in place. He might find them off putting or bizarre (ladies as heads of states?? what about your children??) but he was an imminently pragmatic man who would look at a situation and go “alright, this is the reality of the system and society I am now in” and would adjust himself accordingly.

In the end, trying to figure out how a man from 1815 would react to today’s politics is very difficult, if not outright impossible. His understanding of what liberal meant, what conservative meant, etc. were so different to our understanding that I would never place him in one camp. He had changing, dynamic views, and that would be reflected in his understanding of politics in 2020.

Overall, I think he would disagree with a lot of the stances of the Le Pens. Would he hate them? No. Because Napoleon didn’t really hate people based on their political views. He saw too much of the Revolution to go for extreme personal reactions to political stances; also he was too much a pragmatist and understood that you never know who might be an ally in the future.

Napoleon might look down on the Le Pens, he might find them personally disgusting, he might view them as stupid (honestly, he’d probably just think they’re dumb and quickly move on), but he wouldn’t hate them.

Because this is tumblr, I must now declare my political stance because I was too calm in most of that assessment.

1. Fuck the Le Pens & Front Nationale

2. Nationalism is spooky and I am always suspect when it comes up in political discourse in the year of our lord 2020

3. I am bi and non-binary, which isn’t actually a political stance (or a personality), but tumblr is Like That so I thought I’d include it.

4. I support: lgbtq rights; trans rights; universal health care; easy and open access to education; improved access to education at primary school levels (because that’s a huge impact on people); ACAB; separation of church and state; prison reform/some form of abolishment - I’m still thinking through my views on this and how it should be approached; land back; Aboriginal and Treaty Rights; immigration; no more kids in cages jesus christ; don’t drink bleach; democracy is good, punch fascists etc. etc.

#and by spooky I mean that I think nationalism is a plague on all our houses #napoleon bonaparte #napoleon #spicy fucking ask #I really don't want dumb comments or asks as a result of this #fingers crossed #ask #reply #anon #napoleon in the modern day

7 notes · View notes

firelord-frowny · 4 years

Text

So like?? I’m still a baby as far as my familiarity with the Star Trek franchise, and so far, I’ve only really delved into TNG, DS9, and Voyager, but holy WOW, I haven’t ceased to be amazed by the incredible scope of topics and concepts and the boldness with which it dives head first into social issues that most shows, even by today’s standards, wouldn’t touch with a 40-lightyear-long pole.

The Star Trek Franchise has always had a reputation for being ~progressive~ and inclusive in addition to just being straight up beautifully written, and so here’s my dumb lil list of reasons why I think folks should watch Star Trek:

~Female~ characters are characters who happen to be female. Their femaleness is by no means ignored, but it’s also not The Point of their presence in the overall storylines. Women are captains and admirals and doctors and hailed scientists, and it’s not considered unusual or impressive. They aren’t “shattering stereotypes” or “proving men wrong.” They’re simply brilliant, powerful, and authoritative, and no one questions it. On the rare occasion that gender-based discriminatiton is mentioned, it’s usually within a context of “back on Acient Earth when humans were dumb as hell.”

The same is true for characters of color. Though the casts are still overwhelmingly white, characters of color are present, important, and respected. They’re engineers and scientists and security specialists. Also?? Off the top of my head, races/ethnic groups that have been represented as more than just background characters have included black folks, south asian folks, east asian folks, native americans, and I’m suree that doesn’t cover it. Also?? Actors of color also get to play aliens! Idk, I just think that’s cool, considering how people like to pitch a fit any time a black person is cast as a vampire or an elf or an alien or a native of a completely made up country in a world that does not exist.

A healthy, openly affectionate relationship between a black dad and his black son! This happens in Deep Space 9, specifically, between the main character, Captain Sisko, and his son, Jake. Their relationship is BEAUTIFUFL, and honestly, DS9 is worth watching for that reason alone.

Portrayals of masculinity are SO!!! HEALTHY!!! Male characters can be strong and tall and brave and protective of their families, all without also being gross jerks while they’re at it. And?? There are male characters who are more ~effeminate~ and literally no one cares. They’re short or thin or not physically imposing and they like to do soft, quiet things like drink tea or play the flute or sew clothing. They’re still respected and admired and their skills are valued and no one insinuates that they need to “man up.”

Likewise, when a woman is brash and loud and physical and strong and confident, no one tells her to “act like a lady.”

For the most part, human society has evolved beyond money, poverty, and violence. Earth is a unified planet, rather than a bunch of little angry countries yelling at each other. Humans almost unanimously view bigotry, discrimination, poverty, etc, as being primititve and repugnant. These values are obvious in how the human crew experience the various situations and alien cultures they encounter.

Since humankind is “beyond” issues like racism or sexism or religious discrimination and whatnot, the show examines these issues by having the crew struggle to navigate social issues between other alien cultures. They have this concept called the “prime directive” which more or less states that under no circumstances should they interfere with the development of less “advanced” civilizations, and it’s interesting to see them struggle to balance “minding their own business” with “maybe don’t let this planet commit genocide against that planet.”

Despite humankind’s and the Federation’s supposed high moral code, we still see many instances where their choices and actions are questionable, if not outright wrong, and we get to see all the philosophical and literal chaos it stirs up within the galaxy

Romance is rarely a Main Storyline, and even when it’s just a significant subplot, the parties involved always have more to love about each other than just He’s Hot and She’s Hot.

Healthy romantic relationships are shown in interracial couples, as well as couples where both peeps are black. DS9 even brings up some same-sex love and lust, though unfortunately it never lingered on the subjects for long.

Heavy Topics addressed include: transracial (transspecies, really) adoption, the validity of terrorism as a political tactic (yes, the bombing and killing kind), parents whose children die, children whose parents die, slavery, suicide, assisted suicide, religion and faith, lack of religion and faith, the definition of “life”, rights to self determination, bodily autonomy, capital punishment, torture, war and violence in the context of culture... the list is almost literally endless.

Cute/Funny topics addressed include: Humor and what makes things Funny, two Opposite Characters getting into wacky shenanigans together, trying to find the perfect gift for a loved one, miscommunication and how it causes hilarious chaos to ensue.

Basically, Star Trek leaves no stone unturned and deeply explores a lot of topics that I know are important to lots of peeps in my social circles here on tumblr, so like. If you’re running out of shit to do to pass the time while you hide from the plague, I deeeeefinitely recommend Star Trek. You can pretty much start with any series in no particular order, though once you start a series you’re usually best off watching the episodes in that series in order.

7 notes · View notes

natsubeatsrock · 4 years

Text

So, I watched Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood, and...

Not unlike a lot of things that aren't Fairy Tail, I want to talk about it. In a month, I'm going to spend every day for 4 whole weeks talking about things that aren't Fairy Tail. I will talk about Fairy Tail now and then in some of the posts, but the focus of them isn't Fairy Tail. As a warm-up for that, I decided to talk about Brotherhood.

Recent events in the news have made me think about what I like to call "the Scar philosophy". The name obviously comes from my own reasoning about how Scar ought to have seen his quest for revenge. This is the topic of a lot of interesting and often disturbing conversations between fans, especially in regards to Scar's status as hero or villain, within the narrative. I like to divide things into three categories, based on different groups of people related to this whole situation.

The first category consists of only one person: Solf J. Kimblee. He is the man directly responsible for the death of his family. If all Scar wanted to do was find and kill the Crimson Alchemist, this post would be over. I think most people would be fine with his motive and actions. There might be some debate over if he should actually kill him, but considering this is Kimblee we're talking about, I think it would be fine if he did kill him.

The second category is where things start to get interesting. This is where I put anyone else directly involved in the genocide of the Ishvalans. Remember my wording of this category as it will be important later on. The most obvious people in this group are the members of the military who killed soo many Ishvalans. However, this also includes Envy who started the conflict in the first place.

Now, as I see it, this is a section that requires nuance to talk about. Envy and many of the soldiers and alchemists involved were bad and ought to have been punished for their willful and gleeful participation in the slaughter of a people group. However, many of the people who were part of the army recognized the problems with their actions and those above them. They wanted to change the system that was ultimately responsible for the genocide.

With the end of the series, Roy Mustang prepares to rule the country by learning about the Ishvalan people. If Scar were to kill all of the people in this group, he would lose out on finding people willing to help sustain the restoration of his people beyond their current state as refugees and wanderers.

One of the big issues with Scar's plan and goals is that it doesn't do much for his people after he's done. Once the state alchemists are done, then what? His rage is satisfied, but the system that he took issue with doesn't change. If anything, his actions could have been used to justify even more oppression for the Ishvalans.

Now up to this point, the argument can be made that Scar's actions are justified, at least to some degree. Even though people like Roy and Alex Armstrong are sorry for what they did and would like to change things for the better, they still have blood on their hands. In the eyes of some that might be enough for their deaths to the justified by Scar. Their best attempts can never truly replace what was lost. After all, what can equal the value of a human soul?

That being said, the third category is where my patience for those who argue that Scar was justified ends. This, of course, refers to everyone else who was caught in Scar's path of revenge. The actions carried out to people in this section are what make Scar, at least for the beginning portion of the series, an antagonist. There are two big examples of characters in this group.

The first is the Rockbells. Even as they were working with the military, they were kind enough to treat people, regardless of what side they were on. Ironically enough, it's because of this mentality they were killed. While I am slightly partial to the 2003 explanation for their death, I can't say it was a bad idea to have Scar kill the Rockbells. While it could be argued that Scar did this in a fit of rage, he's willing to let Winry take out her own form of vengeance on him.

Of course, this goes nowhere because of the next example, the Elrics. Remember how the last category was people who responsible for killing Ishvalans? That wasn't the ultimate target of Scar's revenge. His ultimate goal was the death of all state alchemists. That is an important distinction.

While that goal makes sense considering the war got as bad as it did once the state alchemists were involved in the fighting, Ed presents yet another challenge to the logic of Scar's actions. If his ultimate motivation was revenge, then going after the Elrics was useless. If it was the destruction of a group responsible for killing his people, Ed and Al were training with Izumi Curtis when the war happened.

Even becoming a state alchemist is more of a means to an end for the Elrics. They don't enjoy the system they're a part of. They're only using their status for its benefits to their search for the Philosopher's Stone. If there were other ways to get what they needed, I'm willing to bet becoming a state alchemist wouldn't be a part of their plan in the first place.

To be crystal clear, I am not arguing that Scar does nothing right or that he was totally unjustified. The actions committed against the Ishvalans were devastating and unjustifiable. Knowing as much as we do about what happened to make Scar do what he did makes it hard to say that his rage was wholly unjustified.

However, Scar's judgment was still clouded by his vengeance. He purposefully ignored his cultural and religious teachings to hurt people that, at best, acknowledged their wrongs and wanted to make amends for the actions and, at worst, had nothing to do with his reasons for revenge. Even as I would say that Scar's motivation makes sense, he was far from doing the right thing. And it's ultimately because of people that can empathize with him that real change can happen for his people, outside of his search for revenge.

This is one of the many things that makes Hiromu Arakawa's writing of Fullmetal Alchemist so incredibly masterful. Scar's rage at injustice is still wholly justified by the end of the series and his people can start rebuilding. However, he recognizes that there are better ways to achieve a better state for his people than killing people.

One of the craziest things about this whole theme I realized reflecting on the situation is that his final fight with him isn't against Kimblee. His fight on the Promised Day is with Wrath, otherwise known as King Bradley. Interestingly, his final fight isn't with the man who's directly responsible for the death of his family. It's with the man who, for most people, would represent the ruling powers during the Ishval Civil War.

We do well to learn from this example. The world is a messed up place. The past events of this year alone have been enough proof of that on several levels. Yet, the real issues are, more often than not, with systems and structures that perpetuate injustices. We do well not to castigate all those in said systems and structures without recognizing the many ways that some work to subvert those systems from within. We also especially shouldn't involve people who aren't part of the real problems we're trying to solve. Doing either is more often than not counterproductive to the end goal of true justice.

These thoughts have been stewing in me for just over two years since starting and completing Brotherhood. Between then and now, I've seen a lot of people talk here about Scar's actions on both sides of the "Scar did nothing wrong" debate. And, under normal circumstances, I’m not sure that I would be inclined to add to this discourse, if I’m adding anything to over a decade of discourse by making this post.

However, the real inspiration for this post has come from the more recent events regarding the murder of George Floyd. The outrage is beyond justified and many have made peaceful protests against his death and the system that caused it across the country and even the world. However, many innocent people have been hurt and even killed during the various riots surrounding the Twin Cities.

If you're interested in specific ways to help, click here for a list of funding drives and charities related to the aftermath of what's been happening. This list includes the official GoFundMe's for George Floyd's family and daughter.

#fullmetal alchemist: brotherhood #scar #not fairy tail month: crisis on infinite fandoms #oohh i like that one #it's been a while #since i've made a post i'm deathly afraid of posting #one month of these? yikes #to be fair #they won't all be this spicy #but some will

7 notes · View notes

abhangofstrings · 4 years

Text

Femininity

Home isolation has induced atleast in some of us thoughts that need organization and opinion. It is in such a circumstance that I decided to pen down some of my sociological observations. A very complex idea that controls many of the stereotypes existing in our society is the notion of femininity. In reality, the notion of femininity in itself is arrived at from various gender stereotypes. I will try to make this write up as unbiased as possible. As of now, I have not made any reference or reading to enhance or give extra value to my opinion. Hence this is relatively original and crude in terms of writing. The idea though, I am pretty sure is popular and discussed vigorously on intellectual levels.

In the most mundane of all senses, femininity to a lay person may mean anything at all that is stereotypically associated with a woman. This may include the art of make-up (more specifically the use of lipsticks, evident eye make up, etc), the 'responsibility' of looking pretty to satisfy the male gaze, the way a woman walks (like a cat or a swan as popularly described in literature, it can get even weirder in various other languages), smelling like flowers and fruit, throwing tantrums, maintaining foot hygiene etc. The one factor that is common among all of these characteristics is that they are all more or less physical or appearance oriented. They are associated with the physical features that are typically thought of to be associated with women. But femininity is way beyond the exterior of a woman.

Let me start with a conceivable and straight example. Those persons who are into management, especially if you have to travel to other countries as part of your job, meet and interact with people who are from culturally diverse backgrounds, you might know that nationalities, more aptly nations, are classified into being either feminine or masculine. Japan falls on to the feminine side because of their sensitivity to modern day issues, their importance to growth as a group or a community of people and not individualistic progress, their belief systems and several other sociological parameters. The United States of America on the other hand is classified as a masculine country because they give a lot of importance to personal growth and success at a more personal level. These classifications are not based on how feminine or masculine the people of these country look like but they reflect a deeper aspect of the general characteristics of the behaviour of their population.

Conventionally, femininity is characterized by compassion, care, love, patience, physical beauty and many other virtues. When we talk about femininity, we must also talk about masculinity, which is the other side of the same coin. Masculinity is characterized by the sense of responsibility, chivalry, protective nature, physical strength etc (conventionally). We will see the logic behind the development of this classification very soon. I would like to further classify each of these qualities into two, namely physical and abstract. Physical femininity can be associated with the more physical characteristics amongst the feminine characteristics, like physical beauty and maintenance, mannerisms, gesticulation etc, while abstract femininity can be associated with emotional and intangible characteristics defining femininity like compassion, loving nature, motherly affection etc, likewise for masculinity. Something we must understand from my definition of these qualities is the fact that femininity and masculinity are not associated with anyone being a male or a female but are defined from how male and female stereotypes have been in a particular society. What I did is to classify the qualities into two categories, and not people themselves. It is true that statistically (though statistics can be the biggest of all lies) women are more feminine and men are more masculine, but there is no restriction to anyone showing any of these characteristics on a more practical sense.

Continuing from the last sentence of the previous paragraph, as a matter of fact neither femininity nor masculinity is strictly associated with someone being a woman or a man. But we all know that conventional societies like ours stress upon a woman and only a woman to display physical feminine qualities and vice versa. 'Boys don't cry' or 'Girls don't cross legs' are phrases that we hear from our childhood because crying is typically (stereotypically, emphasizing) a feminine trait and crossing legs when among a group of people is typically masculine. The truth is, every man exhibits femininity and every woman exhibits masculinity, or more clearly, they exhibit the traits that come under the umbrella of femininity and masculinity. This can never be untrue and hence the veil of the idea of a person strictly belonging to one particularly gender philosophically can be invalidated. This is because the extent up to which a man exhibiting femininity or a woman exhibiting masculinity is very relative and is dependent on a multitude of factors that include one’s culture and various facets of it. Hence, a man who is masculine with respect to one culture may be seen feminine in another culture. Same is the case with women. Henceforth, gender must be viewed of having more of the form of a spectrum (Reminding the fact that gender and sex need not necessarily coincide every time. We tend to forget the nature of the classifications 'gender' and 'sex' and assume that a person who is physiologically a male must be also a male in gender and vice versa) and can never be viewed in an absolute sense (a new spectrum can be visualized for every culture, not sure if this is practically possible though!). There are several applications online to check how feminine or masculine you are on the basis of a certain number of questions and these work on the basis of such parameters and definitions. You need not be surprised if you are physiologically a man, but exhibit more femininity than masculinity!

Hinduism has a very fine example of the concept that was discussed above. The idea of Shiva-Shakti or Ardhanareeswara is an observation on the same lines. A human being is complete when both femininity and masculinity are present in them. The ambiguity in the concept lies in the uncertainty in how much of each quality must be assigned in a person for them to be regarded as an 'ideal' human being. A person with high masculinity is ideally a man, and a person with high femininity is ideally a woman in terms of their gender (clearly not sex), then what about someone who is high in both or low in both (We have specific terms for candidates satisfying these criteria) ? We know that the word 'ideal' in itself is very debatable!

8 notes · View notes