#like the one group of people on this planet who SHOULD have ethics and morals lmfaooooo

[yioh]

it’s so crazy and dystopian that average conversations these days on social media are abt whether or not a group of random ass people have the right to be alive or if they should all just be indiscriminately murdered and bombed and die the most painful death

#it’s SO crazy seeing people justify carpet bombing its so fucking crazy #they talk abt it as if it’s something that you just can’t avoid #“oh boy super sorry bout this i just HAVE to bomb tens of thousands of people.. like in the name of justice #all the ethics and morals i’ve grown with that i thought were natural ……. are not being exercised by any of the world leaders #like the one group of people on this planet who SHOULD have ethics and morals lmfaooooo #like i always knew they were shitheads like when obama could casually bomb so many innocent people and still retain his reputation as a #cool chill president or whatever the fuck #but seeing it happen time and time again #like my own family faced genocide man #my literal mum and dad both lost people in the family my mum had her house fucking bombed #that ….. it always felt like something that happened a very long time ago and wouldn’t ever happen again #our lives are worth so fucking little …. what is the point …………. #i don’t get how to just casually continue being alive in this shitass world when it all is worth so little #when there are so many deaths it just becomes a statistic to politicians #humanity is both wretched and beautiful but why is it that the wretchedness is always so powerful

[ganymedesclock]

I think there's a tricky place we can fall into with discourse about prejudice where the pattern goes,

"sometimes people will be angry! Demanding minorities to be sanitized and peaceful and pleasant to groups that have hurt them and in the face of behaviors that continue to hurt them is unfair!"

Which is a good thought!

But then it becomes, "it is always ethical to bully people who are More Privileged Than You!"

At which point there are three problems,

Problem one is that bully mentalities are not good, not in a moral sense as much as a practical one. Even incidents we do celebrate, like that one time a neonazi spokesperson got punched, we don't celebrate because it's a bullying action. It was a targeted act of deplatforming. That guy wasn't embarrassed because we wanted to snap his underwear and send him home crying. The punch was a means to take the platform away from a dangerous person who was using it to spread hate speech. The goal is to stop the harm. The goal is to stop the harm.

The goal is not to be a bully, because being a bully feels good and fun and cathartic and the more you encourage that impulse the more you will actively want to find people to bully, because it feels good, and being left alone with your feelings doesn't feel so good. So the categories broaden. As a means to vent anger it fails, because it makes you angrier, because you want to be angrier, because if you have more justifications there are more people to hurt. An endless buffet of people to hurt! You're better than ALL of them! (Not good for you, not good for praxis, not good to be around)

Problem two is that every human being on the planet is complicated and Privilege is a thing we can identify much more easily in vague abstract than we can in practice. Trying to split hairs and divide everything down to the finest degree to rule who outranks who on the great objective scale of privilege, creates a model where people are incentivized to strip themselves down to victim status for credibility. And most of the categories are extremely broad and affect people to very different degrees. Is my disability "disabled enough" for people? Or because I don't have physical disabilities and I'm not nonverbal, should I shut up forever, regardless of what I'm saying? Are strangers on the internet entitled to my medical history?

At that point it's basically just repeating ableism- you're only credible if you're suffering SO much you can't live without help and then we should all pity you and see you as such a victim. And that's just one example. There's a lot of ways this can go wrong.

Problem three- and the thing that inspired me to make this post- is that if you establish a narrative where the closer to a cis, white, straight, perisex, allosexual, able-bodied, english-speaking christian man in America someone is, the worse a person they inherently are, which gives ownership to all these qualities to the worst people.

I feel like I often see jokes or discussions of characters where male characters are ascribed 'stupidity' as a trait when the thing that the audience is clearly actually reacting to is that he's. nice. trustworthy. patient. And I feel like that's kind of unfair, isn't it? Are we implying any sufficiently smart man would hurt and maltreat others? That the best thing he can be is stupid? As a transmasc person myself, I don't really like the idea that if I reached a point in my transition where people saw me as a man more than anything else, they'd be afraid of me and have to decide if they think I'm too stupid to hurt them.

Men don't inherently suck, cis-heteronormativity creates a shitty box to put men in and this experience hurts them. If the hypothetical Perfectly Normative Man I listed above is the winner of the 'game' that prejudice creates (again, in America, not necessarily in every country) he wins a really bad prize. The primary nexus of misogyny, of racism, homophobia, transphobia, acephobia, ableism, prejudice against intersex people and non-christian religions and secular beliefs are directed off him, but he is made a soldier for these causes because he is never that far off the crosshairs. A cis straight man is often culturally socialized to be terrified of queerness because there is always the warning he could fail to measure up, and become rejected like those Others. Virtually always, in some way, he is already Other himself, even if he hits all the 'correct' categories he may not hit them in a way that power approves of.

This is a system that perpetuates itself through suffering, and the worst possible men, cis people, straight people, so on and so forth do not deserve to be given the right and privilege to speak for the category.

#readmore #Obvious disclaimer that like. some people are venting/using catharsis in response to #accusations like from conservative pearl clutchers #oh gays hate straight people #obviously our relationship with language is complicated and I'm not saying this to be the cops looming over your shoulder #I'm basically suggesting that it's good to ask ourselves about habits/jokes we make consistently

[vdenvs3000w23]

UNIT 10

Hey everyone! 

I can’t believe we have reached the end of the semester and I’m writing my last blog post. I am so grateful to have been able to read so many amazing perspectives and discuss the beauty of nature within so many different elements. I have learned so much from this course and I am thankful to have been pushed out of my comfort zone in order to fully dive into the world of nature interpretation and what it means to interpret nature in different ways. It was nice to be able to have a space where we can all have our own perspectives on the topics presented to us and to be able to discuss them respectfully. As stated in the textbook, personal interpretation is important to allow opportunities for others to simply go out and enjoy the wonders of the world on their own, taking in all the different aspects of the beauty of the world through their senses (Beck et al., 2018 (chapter 5). It was nice to see how everyone views the wonders of the world in their own way. Which blog prompt was the most challenging for you?

When reflecting on my personal ethics in regards to nature interpretation, I think that they mirror the ethics that I follow throughout my everyday life. Everyday I strive to make ethical and moral decisions that are inclusive, loving, understanding, respectful, and mindful. I really want to bring back the topic of privilege, as previously discussed in unit 3. I think that understanding and recognizing privilege is so important for my own ethics within nature interpretation. Realizing that the aspects of my life that got me to where I am right now are not accessible to most and I should never assume that any two people are the same in terms of their privilege. It is so important to properly include groups such as cultural minorities, children, teenagers, older adults, and individuals with disabilities so that they are more inclined to participate more readily when interpreters make special efforts to welcome and better serve them (Beck et al., 2018 (chapter 7)). No one should feel like they are not able to participate in nature interpretation, or anything for that matter. 

Nature interpretation in itself is very personal but it is so special when you are able to share it with others. Interpretation is aimed to provoke a personal connection with things, places, people, and concepts (Beck et al., 2018 (chapter 5)). I believe that inclusivity and respect are important aspects for my own nature interpretation ethics. As someone who has given horseback riding trails and has taught a kids camp, I can say that every interaction is different. It is always up to me to make sure that everyone is comfortable and feels seen and heard. I want to inspire people and get them excited about the parts of nature that also inspire me. 

I also love how this course incorporated science and nature. As a student with a science background, it was nice to see how non-science students and the general public can participate to make the planet a better place. There is more attention being given to an understanding of the learning processes and the capacities of individuals and communities needed to help resolve complex socio-ecological issues (Wals et al., 2014). Through nature interpretation, the general public will be able to recognize and appreciate all aspects of nature with a more clear understanding of why there needs to be change. There is a plea that is made to support the Earth Charter, which embodies a balanced respect for future human generations through principles (Bourdeau, 2003). It is important to realize that we are setting the stage for so many generations to come, if we don’t take care of the earth properly, there will be no nature to interpret. The German philosopher, Hans Jonas, said that we must be guardians of nature and of future generations, whose interests are closely confounded as they are weakened to the point where their persistence is no longer assured (Bourdeau, 2003). We have a certain ethical and moral obligation when it comes to taking care of the earth. 

In all honesty, I didn’t really anticipate this course to challenge me in the ways that it did. I took this course because I love nature and wanted to be able to learn more about the ways we interpret it but I quickly realized that it demands a much more critical way of thinking than I was expecting, and I am glad for this. The most interesting thing I learned is how the ambient sound of an environment mimics a modern-day orchestra: the voice of each creature has its own frequency, amplitude, and duration (Gray et al., 2001). I found the podcast to be a challenge, however, I was super happy with how it turned out, getting to see our hard work turned into a good copy. Doing a podcast was very beneficial, especially considering the way technology has progressed because having interpretive programs being accessible live or recorded adheres to more audiences around the world (Beck et al., 2018 (chapter 8)). This means that more people are able to tune in and learn about nature interpretation even if they are not in a particular area to do so first hand. 

I will definitely be taking so much away from this course and will be implementing the different topics discussed into my life. I strive to continue showing and passing on the love I have for nature to others and inspire those who are disconnected to connect and appreciate the world, nature, and the people in it.

Beck, L., Cable, T. T., & Knudson, D. M. (2018). Interpreting cultural and natural heritage : for a better world. Sagamore Venture.

Bourdeau, P. (2003, August 29). The man−nature relationship and environmental ethics. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0265931X03001802?casa_token=Yn8LrDgbqTUAAAAA%3AdVzbvAyyY5cGTPjw5A-3cyYYh2SIvCtywIrl8Zw8tNvUU0-Mp-1c_6iixOV0Se7bQp7Jz3ul

Gray, Patricia M., et al. "The Music of Nature and the Nature of Music." Science, vol. 291, no. 5501, 5 Jan. 2001, p. 52. Gale Academic OneFile

Wals, A. E., Brody, M., Dillon, J., & Stevenson, R. B. (2014). Convergence between science and environmental education. Science, 344(6184), 583–584. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1250515

[ly0nstea]

A reason why many redemption arcs stink is because many writers confuse morality with social ethics. Social ethics deals with right and wrong in how we interact with others. Morality on the other hand is based on nature and purpose; thus it does not depend on there being anyone else to interact with. If you were the last person on Earth, would morality still exist? Would it be immoral for the last person on earth to use a doomsday device to destroy all other life forms on the planet just for ...

fun? I'm sure most people would instinctively feel that it would be immoral, even if they don't admit it. And they'd be right. Harming another human being without just cause is just one way of doing something immoral. Morality is based on nature because nature is of divine origin. It’s surprising how much of what we think is our moral values is really just being afraid of our peers judging us and rejecting us for breaking those values. (2/2)

----------------------------------------------------

i think I somewhat agree? You had me until you said morality was nature, and nature is of divine origin because well, thats not true, unless you're talking about a pagan religion where there is literally a god of nature.

If you're talking about the abrahamic god (Christian, Jewish, and Islamic god) which, shot in the dark its pretty likely thats what you mean by divine, the nature isn't dictated by god, either that or everything in nature should be deemed moral, because god doesn't do immorality, that goes against one of the most core beliefs about god, being god is good. However, we know that nature isn't moral, because animals in fact have their own social ethics and morals. Animals can and do ostracise other members of their group, and ostracism only happens when a creature is deemed as doing wrong, and doing bad things is the most fundamental part of morality, so, either nature is not divine, or divinity is not always moral, and that just goes back to the 'if god is good and all powerful, then why does cancer exist" argument and thats an unfalsifiable claim and cannot be argued.

Our morals and social ethics are entirely based on our society and social norms. Even if your morals are informed by the bible and by god, those morals come from a book, that was at the very least penned by people interpreting god, or the divine acts they saw, and is ultimately a product of humanity and human society, even if god spoke to them, they wrote what they heard, and their hearing is not infallable, neither is their hand, word choice, or politcal and moral motivations in writing the book.

So, morality is a product of not only humanity, but of any organised, complex life forms. The queen bee's place as commander of the hive is a moral statement, it is a statement that worker bees are less than the queen, their lives are worth less both individually and as a whole. This moral argument is both supported and enforced by the biology of the bee with its hivemind structure.

The morality of human society is the sum total of all the moral opinions and statements of individual humans, for example, if you have a moral question, you weigh all the arguments for, and against, and the ones who's arguments hold greater value, and significance, ultimately win in the 'market place fo ideas' and a moral statement is created. The moral status quo for that question.

The easiest and simplest moral ideology is the consequalist argument, basically, an immoral action is an action that causes direct or indirect harm, and a moral action being an action that causes direct or indirect good, and an amoral action being a net 0 harm done or good done.

An example of the three being, a moral action is helping someone with their homework, the net result is good. An immoral action is kicking someone for your own enjoyment, the harm done to the other person, combined with the type of harmful enjoyment makes it a net harmful action, and amoral action would be smoking in an isolated area, while harm is done to the self, you are doing so willingly and knowingly, and (generally) do get a level of enjoyment out of it so the net harm done is 0. The problem with this is when actions become more complicated. When the net harm, or net good is a subjective opinion (There's also the sequence of actions, is kicking someone an immoral act, if such a person kicked the kicker before hand? Did they 'deserve it?' ), or when the net harm and net good is on a grand scale. It's an ends justify the means situation. Is something of great harm worth the cost, if the result is something of great good? The net good might be far, far greater than the net harm, but many people will still say the net harm is too great.

Think of it like a critical mass, is there a threshold of harm so great, that no amount of good actions can account for it? Or at the very least, that the human life is too short to be able to account for it properly, theres also the concept of 'time heals all wounds' while you might not have done i direct moral act to account for something, any harm done has become irrelevant and this is inconsequential, and to a consequentialist, inconsequeential acts are irrelevent.

The point I'm leading to here, is that the consequentialist outlook is the core principle behind the concept of redemption. to be redeemed, you must do good, to make up for the harm you have doen previously. You go from an immoral person (a person who has done net harm) to an amoral or even moral person (a person who has done net 0 harm or net good).

Now, the amount of good one must do to redeem themselves is relative. Steal a cookie? then just apologising is usually enough. Kill a man? Well you may have to do some greater good.

This graph is exponential, not linear. It's not a clean 1 unit of good = 1 unit of bad, where certain moral or immoral actions are worth their own dedicated units of good or bad (obviously mathematising morality is a useless idea becuase of its objective subjectivity, but this is just for an example.) The way redemption works mean that the more bad you do, an exponential more good you must do. (see pic.)

As you can see, someone who repeatedly does a lot of harm, needs to do a lot more good because they've shown on repeated occassions they are willing to do great, great harm, and thus need to show they are capable of good even more. This can often be frustrating for the person attempting redemption, but, thats just how it is.

I'll leave off on the alternate idea of redemption where instead of doing good actions, if enough harm is inflicted upon the person comitting harm, then it cancels out. I think that's a bad way to measure it because that is not a moral redemption, it is an immoral redemption, you have solved the problem with more immorality, and the net product of that 'redemption' is twice the immorality, when the whole point of a redemption is to make up for the harm done.

basicallt, if you are punished enough, then you are let off the hook, you are fine. This is the counter intuitive to the whole idea of redemption, and even the whole concept of morality, because the whole point of morality is to do good.

Anyway, thanks for the ask, this was a lot of fun to write.

#morality #morals #consequential

[jgenvs3000f23]

Unit 10 Blog Post

This is your last required blog post – but note that it is worth two submissions so please double your response and respond to twice as many of your peers’ posts.

Describe your personal ethic as you develop as a nature interpreter. What beliefs do you bring? What responsibilities do you have? What approaches are most suitable for you as an individual?

After a semester of learning and growing as a nature interpreter, I have developed a clear understanding of my personal ethics, responsibilities, and the related approaches I would take to fulfill these moral obligations. These obligations stem from a combination of environmental stewardship and the associated interpersonal work utilized.

One of the main goals of nature interpretation as outlined in the textbook is to encourage environmental stewardship through the responsible use of resources and the protection of natural environments. To encourage stewardship and protection is to encourage more people to join the fight in protecting our planet. To me, this means the more people I can teach about responsible living and traveling, the more conservation and interpretation that will take place. Many people believe that all change begins with education, and that is how I believe nature interpretation aids the most. I believe that once you are in the position of being an educator of the natural world, you are also in a position where ethically, you are responsible for educating on what has happened to our world and how to protect it in the future. 

As an interpreter, you have three main environmental protection pillars (depending on location). There is wildlife, plant life, and the Earth and abiotic structures/processes. All three of these categories are integral pieces of the natural world. Some people may have a stronger connection to one than others, but all must work in harmony to create a beautiful environment. I believe that due to the intertwined behavior of these categories, as well as the substantive role each of these plays in an environment, I have a responsibility to interpret in such a way that teaches about each of these pieces, explains their connections, and encourages their protection.  

On a typical day for a nature interpreter, there are often hundreds or even thousands of people watching and learning from you. Each of these people has different backgrounds, abilities, ethnicities, religions, values, etc. As an interpreter, I believe that each and every person who visits should be treated fairly, equally, and with respect, regardless of who they are. The only time when someone may be seemingly favoured over others, should be in moments of connection when a visitor is asking questions or receiving one on one instruction. These moments should also be spread amongst group members to encourage fairness in an experience. 

Another responsibility of interpreters that can sometimes be tricky when trying to ensure a fair experience for everyone is to do your best to ensure everyone is enjoying the experience. I believe this is important because as mentioned previously a large role of nature interpreting is to encourage environmental stewardship. As discussed in the textbook, visitor enjoyment is crucial because when visitors are having fun and enjoying their experience, there is a much greater chance that they will learn new things and thus care more about conserving the area than if they did not enjoy their time. Obviously, not everyone will be satisfied every time, but it is important to do what you can whenever possible to increase enjoyment. With regards to delivery, If I were to work as an interpreter, this may look like having a few different lesson plans depending on the group I am working with, having a variety of different activities to cater to varying interests and abilities, and responding and adapting to feedback. 

If I were to work as an interpreter, I believe my most suitable role would be in person, in an outdoor natural park or museum. In this environment, I would be able to provide a highly enjoyable experience for everyone, while remaining fair, inclusive, and encouraging environmental protection. I believe that first-person interpretation will always have the strongest impact on a person when compared to alternatives such as books, videos, and podcasts where the recipient only has one resource to learn from. First-person interpretation immerses the visitor in their natural environment, an experience that is untouched by the alternatives. Some things I would implement to ensure participant enjoyment would be a pre-questionnaire to get a better sense of visitor ability levels, as well as general subject interests. This would provide me with a baseline to decide on a lesson plan to follow for the interpretation. I would also have a variety of reading, auditory, and hands-on experiences, to allow people with varying learning styles and abilities to engage fully in the experience. 

Clearly, the task of environmental interpretation is tough, especially when considering the various pressures constantly put on you. It is extremely important to encourage environmental stewardship, but it is equally important to ensure visitor enjoyment. I believe that these ethical responsibilities drive me as a nature interpreter to do the best I can for both visitors and the Earth.

[hlyzbth]

"Striving for a Greener Future: The Fight for Environmental Justice"

Hello everyone. Happy Friday! :D In today’s blogpost I’ll be talking about the topic of justice. First of all, what exactly does justice mean? We all probably have a rough idea about it, but I’ll explain what it means. Justice embodies the notion of moral integrity, encompassing ethical principles, rationality, legal systems, natural law, religious beliefs, fairness, and equity. It recognizes and upholds the right of all people, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, nationality, color, ethnicity, religion, or disability, to receive equal protection under the law, safeguarding their civil rights without any form of discrimination (Dibavar, 2023).

Now that we have a deeper understanding on what justice means, I will shed some light on Restorative justice. In both recent literature and government efforts, there's a strong focus on restorative justice.This approach aims to enhance the accessibility of justice for offenders, victims, and communities, highlighting its prominence in current discussions (Dibavar, 2023). Some examples of restorative justice, specifically applied in school and education, could include either grafitti or property damage, theft, and bullying. (Holtham, 2009). In order to solve these issues, we have a thing called “Restorative Resolution”. This process entails examining the damage caused by the incident and posing inquiries like, "How can we mend this harm?" "Who has been affected and what are their requirements?" "Who bears the responsibility to fulfill these needs?" (Dibavar, 2023). Let us take graffiti or property damage for instance. How can we apply restorative justice to this issue? Well, one can help in tidying up, fixing things, or giving a fresh coat of paint, they can also cover the costs incurred for any damages. What about theft? How can we apply restorative justice to this issue? One can give back the stolen items accompanied by a heartfelt apology. Additionally, they should take responsibility by covering the cost of replacing the stolen items (Holtham, 2009).

After doing some further readings on justice, I would like to discuss about environmental justice. First of all, climate change pertains to extended alterations in temperatures and atmospheric conditions over a significant period of time (United Nations, n.d). It is the most significant challenge faced in the 21st century (Dibavar, 2023). Climate change has the potential to impact various aspects of our lives, including our well-being, food production, housing, safety, and employment. Certain groups, like those residing in small island nations and less developed countries, are particularly susceptible to the consequences of climate change. For instance, rising sea levels and the intrusion of saltwater have reached a critical stage, forcing entire communities to relocate (United Nations, n.d). Did you know that many people don’t believe in climate change? Isn’t this saddening to hear?

 We're up against a massive challenge, but the good news is we've already discovered numerous solutions to tackle it! There are three main areas of action when it comes to addressing climate change:  reducing emissions, adapting to the impacts of climate change, and  providing the necessary financial support to make these adjustments. Transitioning our energy systems from fossil fuels to renewable sources such as solar or wind power will significantly decrease the harmful emissions that contribute to the progression of climate change (United Nations, n.d). 

Lastly, I’d like to mention that every single person has the ability to make a positive impact. By actively making thoughtful decisions in our everyday routines, like using less energy, and incorporating sustainable habits, we can make a meaningful impact as a whole. When we unite, we hold the power to change our planet, guaranteeing a vibrant and adaptable environment for all. The time to act is now, and our actions, no matter how small, can be the catalyst for meaningful change! ♥

References:

Dibavar, A. (2023). Week 6 & Final week. [PowerPoint Slides]. Retrieved from http://avenue.mcmaster.ca

United Nations. (n.d.). What is climate change?. United Nations. https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/what-is-climate-change 

J. Holtham (2009). Taking Restorative Justice to Schools: A Doorway to Discipline. Retrieved from https://www.leg.state.co.us/CLICS/CLICS2011A/commsumm.nsf/b4a3962433b52fa787256e5f00670a71/a2e41f38df142ee2872578fc004c9451/$FILE/11SchoolDis0830AttachK.pdf

[juleswritesthis]

Roswell NM 3x11 Thoughts (I have a lot of thoughts!!!)

Contrary to popular opinion I really liked this episode. Yes, the science was so made up it was funny, yes certain character choices are hilariously silly, yes there was a lot of scenes filled with exposition dump, yes characters disappearing for episodes not to be mentioned as if they don’t exist is jarring & annoying, and omg yes, the Wyatt arc (if you can call it that) fell flat and was a complete waste of valuable screen time. So yes, I agree with most everyone’s assessment. That said still a very enjoyable and entertaining episode setting up the final concluding 2 hours of the season. Let’s get into it.

Jones is highly entertaining, overly good looking, and sometimes hilarious villain. Nathan shines bringing charm and depth to the role. Its important to note that Jones hasn’t caused any lasting damage to the group. Sure, he has tried to kill various members, he’s responsible for putting Maria in a coma & has kidnapped half the cast basically, kept our heroes busy all season. But when it comes to killing or destruction it’s really been focused on the dregs or racist folks of the town, the poor scientist in Santa Fe (I think it was Santa Fe) & the lady at the university last week. No one of any real consequence to our heroes. Now I have no idea if Maria’s vision arc has concluded because it hasn’t been mentioned in forever, but I’m assuming that there will be a major death by season end. Noah killed Rosa and the 2 other girls, abused Isobel for 10 years and destroyed the lives of all the mains. For Jones to be a real big bad there’s got to be some long-lasting consequences to one or more of our mains. Though I’m going into the final 2 episodes with excitement there is some concern. I don’t think any of the mains will perish but I do worry about Sanders and even Heath. (I’m really worried about Sanders y’all especially after that promo!!!)

Jones negotiation with Liz was bizarre. Why negotiate at all? Wouldn’t he just threaten to kill or maim people…what the heck is Liz’s bargaining chip against an all-powerful, evil dictator? If she doesn’t do what he wants he can just start killing folks she loves. It really is that easy. I get the whole creativity inspiration thing but fear for those you love is a great motivator. I was so amused that after hours of discussion Liz pulls out the big guns… free the sheriff. Was that her wild card? Really Liz? She may be a kick-ass scientist with a boatload of courage and sass, but I wouldn’t have her negotiating any of my needs anytime soon.

Isobel and Rosa scenes continue to delight. I think it’s clear Rosa won’t be in Season 4 much. As much as I will miss her, I’m glad that she will find some peace and joy at art school, she deserves it. Unlike Wyatt who does not deserve any tranquility because his redemption (if you can call it that) was not earned. Instead, his memories were wiped along with it any true feelings of guilt and remorse. How can we believe he has truly changed? What happens if his memories return? So silly and completely wasteful screen time (no offense to the actor who is quite good and likable).

The Dallas and Max scenes were wonderful. Don’t get me wrong I prefer the show not tell method. And Dallas conveniently having the entire Oasis history in a memory from his father then regurgitating those memories to Max (and the audience) was not the best way to convey the story. However, the actor who plays Dallas is ridiculously charismatic and I could listen to him recite the phone book (do those still exist?) and be entertained. Plus, for one moment I truly believe that Dallas had gotten through to the constantly self-sacrificing, martyr that is Max Evans. But as the promo for finale proves with Max asking Michael (why Michael?) to kill him, the words didn’t stick. Oh Max…

Speaking of, I truly feel so bad for Max. He’s had it rough. In a span of couple weeks, he’s been told he is a clone of an evil dictator, he isn’t the Savior but in fact a weapon to bring down the real Savior who also isn’t really a savior but a genocidal maniac (Michael’s words not mine) who slaughtered half his planet. Not to mention the “there has to be 3” doesn’t include him, as he isn’t part of the triad. And that because he is a clone, he doesn’t actually have biological parents or siblings or anything, well Michael, by DNA sort of, maybe? Oh, and he is the only thing tethering the evil, psycho dictator to life. I mean…

My hope for Season 4 is that Max gets to process everything he has learned about his existence. He hasn’t expressed how he feels the entire season and he deserves to. I hope the writers don’t have him get over it by season’s end with one scene or worse just sweep it under the rug. Like being a clone of an evil psycho, to be used as a weapon, without any real connection to Isobel and Michael? That’s got to have some lasting effects…please writers let me see it on my screen.

Speaking of show not telling, Michael’s new powers. I not a fan of Michael telling us a story of how he used his mind control powers accidently when he was 18. Can we please see these scenes so we can feel the true emotional impact?

As for these powers, strap in, this is a doozy (and might be controversial). I, like Michael, feel that taking someone’s free will, no matter who they are is not a good power to have; it’s not fun, it’s not cool. Michael is right that’s some dark shit and a power that needs to be used very sparingly and with a ton of responsibility.

I loved the scene between Sanders and Michael, but I have a couple issues with some of the dialogue. Sanders is the only living person (other than Jones) that knew and loved Nora. Thus, he can speak about her with authority. He is also the only person who is any kind of real parent figure in Michael’s. Thus, him saying Michael has no darkness can be believed. He knows Michael and he knows Nora. However, Sanders doesn’t know what its like to have powers, especially an immense power such as mind control. Though I appreciate Sanders’ perspective (and agree with him about the purity of Michael’s soul) I wasn’t a big fan of him brushing away Michael’s fears about having mind control powers and not wanting to use them. Yes, it’s important for Michael to recognize just because he has Jones’ power doesn’t mean he is or will ever become Jones. It’s not the powers that make a person. But the line about Nora not fearing her powers was not helpful. Nora’s powers were telekinesis, engineering (if genius is a power) and possibly miraculous crop growth. None of these powers take away a person’s ability to control their actions (well telekinesis to a certain point but in nowhere near actual mind control). So of course, Nora didn’t fear her powers.

I wish someone had validated Michael’s fears instead of brushing them away with a few words of you have no darkness or in Isobel’s case you aren’t like Jones/Noah. A person does not have to be evil or bad to misuse a power like mind control & for that misuse to have dire consequences. Can you imagine being able to make people do what you want them to do at any time? Even if your intent is to do good, it doesn’t mean it’s something that should be done or won’t have major consequences. Sort of like the ends justify means conversation between Jones and Liz. What is the line, do you recognize it and what’s to stop a person from inches towards the line and what happens if you cross it?

So, my wish for next season is for Michael like Max is given time to process what he has learned about himself and his powers. My wish is for Michael is to continue to struggle with when, how and if he should use the mind control power. That way even when faced with a racist sheriff that is holding a gun to his friends, he is careful, asks for consent and never takes advantage of this tremendous power. In addition, I do think it would be very interesting to continue to explore these powers and how they maybe could change a person? Take Max’s power to give and take away life force. He killed Noah and used that life force (and his own) to bring Rosa to back to life. Seems like a good exchange but ethically and morally having a person decide who lives or dies? And how would this all fit into religion with Dallas being a priest? These could make for some great conversations and strong character development. Fingers crossed we see some of it and not just get told in passing.

The music in the episode was amazing. The beginning with Nothing Else Matters and Jones is a tux… I mean… Also, the ending with the fight sequence, building the suspense, only for the reveal to be that Jones had wanted them all to come so he could trap Liz, Dallas, and Max along with Isobel and Michael (for extra leverage) in his mind. I’m confused about why everyone was sitting but Michael was standing? Is he able to move or is he able to resist his father’s mind control? I’m really looking forward to next week and for Team Human to come to the rescue (maybe).

Favorite lines of the episode:

Sanders to Michael: “You are just a pair of sad puppy dog eyes and a cowboy hat”

Jones to Team Alien & Liz: “Well, everyone seems a little tense” (LOL I love Jones!)

Dallas (or Isobel) writing on the wall to Jones: “KNOCK, KNOCK”

#roswell new mexico #michael guerin #liz ortecho #max evans #isobel evans #Dallas #Roswell season 3 #Roswell nm #walt sanders #rosa ortecho #my thoughts

[neophillims]

Im (not) sorry, 70-100 (have fun answering)

this took me so much time but idc i love your account so much !! have fun reading 🥲

70. What’s the tragedy of your life?

the tragedy of my life is life itself,but i find myself embracing it

71. Would your life make a good play?

a play?no. a tv show with 3 seasons and a banger intro?yeah.

72.Should people be prosecuted for crimes that weren’t considered crimes at the time?

from a legal point of view it’s complicated because there is no law to back up the prosecution but from an ethical point of view definitely!prosecution though is a pretty legal term so ethically they should be punished

73.Would you fight for your country? Do you feel a sense of loyalty to your nation?

short answer:no i wouldn’t and no i don’t.long answer:while i deeply respect my country’s culture and impact and i live of off it’s wealth and study freely in it’s universities and spend my life reading philosophy and biology and physics which originated from greece or greeks contributed to them,i am 1)against war for the reasons it happens nowadays (capital) 2)they say a country is it’s people and as much as i love my culture,the majority of the people here have opinions and motives deeply rooted in misogyny and racism and are nationalists .

74.Do you believe in gender equality in every aspect?

what does gender equality mean to you guys?does it mean liberation like it means to me or does it mean to be one with the oppressor?because i see gender equality being thrown around a lot and it’s often in a really liberal way…

75.Do we have a moral obligation to care for others? To what extent?

“moral obligation”…it’s not moral obligation it’s societal expectations which in a way shape moral obligations as we think of them.it’s just safer for people to live in groups and create small societies and families etc etc but it’s just a way of survival.you can care about people to whatever extent you want to and you can not care about people.does the last one make you immoral?yeah sure,whatever…

76.Do you crave approval and/or praise?

yes i do but it’s mostly academic.

77.Is there comedy in all tragedy and tragedy in all comedy?

oh hell yes there is

78.Are you ever going to be satisfied?

no.it’s in a human being’s nature to never be satisfied.this is the reason of constant evolution and whenever i think to myself ‘what is the point of living if i am never going to be satisfied’ i reply ‘i am constantly evolving and that’s enough’

79.When you are sad, do you listen to music that conveys your emotions or music that makes you happy?

i am a little sad and listen to music that is downright depressing so do with that what you will (don’t try this at home)

80.Is your music organised by mood or sensation or do you just listen to everything at any time?

i have playlists with pretty specific moods but sometimes i am listening to a summer hit from 2010 just to play the smiths right after

81.Would you marry a friend if they needed you to (e.g. for citizenship)?

i may sound bad but hell no…i am against marriage sorry

82.Are you a deep person?

i won’t play edge lord here so the answer is :we all are deep people on our own ways

83.Given the chance to live your life on Mars, with no hope of returning to Earth but with the promise of scientific discovery and glory, would you take it?

just blast me into the next galaxy idc at all.but yeah i would because ✨universe and knowledge hehe✨

84.Are you who people think you are?

no but is anyone ever though?people who follow me on tumblr are closer to my actual personality than people who know me irl

85.Do you think you would be happier if you had been born a different gender, sexuality, race, ethnicity, nationality or religion?

i am a white person in a christian family with heaps of privilege.i wouldn’t be happier being born anything else,not even a man.i would be happier to have been born on a planet with no discrimination

86.What’s your toxic trait? Are you trying to improve yourself and fix it?

i can be manipulative but to myself??yeah i am trying

87.Do you anger easily?

a lot of repressed emotions (sadness) can create explosive anger so yeah…i get angry easily but again i repress it

88.Are you a jealous person?

yes i am a really jealous person not in the way that i wish other people not to have something because i don’t but in the way that i work thrice as hard to have that thing myself

89.If you lost all your memories, would you have the same personality?

memories shape our personality so no , no one would

91.Is hate as strong as love? Who do you hate?

yes hate is as strong as love and i don’t hate anyone,because i have a life and i just don’t really care enough to hate someone

93.Do you draw meaning from your dreams, or do you disregard them?

my dreams are super complicated and 99,9% of the time i don’t remember them but the things i remember happen in real life just as i have dreamed them.and that’s on intuition

94.How would you describe yourself when you love? Do you love forcefully, unconditionally, gently, quietly, desperately?

i don’t love a lot but when i do it its unconditional and quiet

95.Is unrequited love real love?

yes,most love is unrequited.i think it’s one of the truest forms of love,because deep down you know that they don’t love you but you still do

96.Is your perception of yourself similar or the same to how others perceive you?

yes it’s similar the nights when i seem to dislike myself a little more than usual

97.Are you overly analytical?

yes and it’s just so tiring but i love always being right in the end :’)

98.Do you ever feel that you are really a terrible person, and only act good out of societal or some other obligation?

all the damn time and the thing is most of the times it’s true but that doesn’t necessarily make me a terrible person,it just makes me a person,human

99.Do you believe in magic? Are you superstitious?

no i don’t believe in any of that.i just like researching about that stuff,there is a lot of cultural knowledge behind them

100.What belief do you have that isn’t logically grounded, but you still firmly believe in?

i probably have something just not at the top of my head.it’s mostly philosophical stuff ,metaphysics etc

#thank you for the ask! #ari answers #this took so loooooong #hopefully people read it #asks and replies

[kapitaali]

The New Hippies

THE NEW HIPPIES: The work abolition movement, anarcho-primitivism and biodynamism as ways to combat climate change

Essay for the course LOGS13b The Strategic Role of Responsibility in Business by Teppo Saari

Introduction

The course LOGS13b The Strategic Role of Responsibility in Business had the students think about and discuss the various ethical dimensions in business, moral dilemmas and choices to be made that a decision maker in business world come across every day.

This essay is motivated by our case study with a headline ’Investors urge European companies to include climate risks in accounts’ (Financial Times 2020). In this essay I will explore values and ethical principles that I see as the solutions to our case study and climate change in general. This is not to say that I could stand up for them in business world. Ironically, my main thread and leitmotif here is the untransformational nature of capitalism and business world. Thus, standing up to the values I will discuss here means doing less business, not more.

This essay is divided in three parts: problem – reaction – solution. These three parts will talk about the chosen values and ethical principles. They are by no means new: pragmatism – The Golden Rule – parsimony & naturality. They just seem to be in conflict with our modern way of living.

Thinking pragmatically about the problem

As part of our course assignment, we got to read about a group of investors managing trillions of dollars worth of assets who urged European companies to include climate risks in their accounts (Financial Times 2020). Scientists have warned us for decades, that pumping extreme amounts of CO2 into our atmosphere will result in melting of the polar ice caps (Mitchell 1989; Jones & Henderson-Sellers 1990), which will raise the sea level and drown some of the coastal cities (Peters & Darling 1985). Finally, capitalists are acting responsibly!

It would seem that capitalists actually cared for the planet and not just their profits. Or would it? Maybe they are scared of losing their future profits, and this kind of media escapade would bring back public trust and confidence in the system. It would be a sign that capitalists can act transparently, openly, accountably, respecting others (O’Leary 1993). But is changing the allocation in your investment portfolio really a sign of empathy? Would there be other ways to better express empathy in business?

Shareholders are interested in the risk their assets are facing, not necessarily in the welfare of the people. Investors acting virtuously can be just virtue-signaling or pleasing other elements in the society to take off media pressure and negative PR from them in a conformist way (Collinson 2003). Maybe they are just greenwashing their own conscience. Why is George Soros’ climate buzz astroturfing industrial complex (Morningstar 2019a) financing Greta Thunberg to do public PR campaigns targeting the youth? Maybe there is money in it. It is unlikely that it would have been dubbed ”A 100 trillion dollar storytelling campaign” without some particularly good reasons (Morningstar 2019b).

But there is something else in it too than just money: power and control. The person who gets to limit choices gets to dictate what kind of choices remain. And if a person has that kind of foreknowledge, then that person can be two steps ahead of us. And being two steps ahead of us means securing future profits. Including climate risks in accounts will imply controls. Controls are imposed on accounts, but ultimately it will mean controls imposed on people and their daily activities. Workers are the ones who will naturally suffer the consequences of management decisions. In this case management decisions are ’urged’ externally, from the owners’ part. After all, it is the corporations that are producing most of the climate change effects, in terms of pollution and greenhouse gases (Griffin 2017). People doing their jobs, working everyday, producing things but also at the same time producing climate effects. I would still love to hear politicians use more terms such as ”pollution” when talking about these issues. For it is unclear how reducing carbon emissions will reduce overall pollution that is also a contributor in the destruction of our environment (see eg. Bodo & Gimah 2020; Oelofse et al. 2007). Issues like microplastics, holes in the ozone layer, biodiversity loss, acid rains and soil degradation need to be talked about just as much, if not more so.

The problem is simple: too much economic activity producing too much climate impact, mostly pollution and greenhouse gases. Solving the Grand Challenge (Konstantinou & Muller 2020) of our time is harder if we wish to keep the fabric of our society intact. There’s a clear need for dialogue among stakeholders (Gardiner 1996), but how is it a dialogue if people are not actually listened to and don’t get to say how things will progress in society? What I am proposing is a meme-like solution that has the greater impact the more people adopt it. My solution is: stop working. Produce less. Stop supporting systems and mechanisms that produce climate effects. Stop supporting the mechanisms that don’t listen to your voice. Disconnect from the Matrix. Working a dayjob is one of these mechanisms. Although many people have realized the benefits of working from home (Kost 2020), a lot more needs to be done. Remote work is not available to everyone. Not all jobs are remote work.

Bob Black (2021) in his texts has advocated for the total and complete abolition of work. Stopping working naturally does not mean stopping doing things, it will merely mean stopping working a job, a concept which itself is a social construct. Black’s theses are simple but powerful. Working is the source of all ills, it is not compatible with ludic life (allthemore so in 2021), it is forced labour and compulsory production, it is replete with indignities called ”discipline”: ”surveillance, rotework, imposed work tempos, production quotas, punching -in and -out, etc”. Black does not only describe the negative ontological aspects of working, he goes deeper and invokes many familiar names of Greek philosophers:

Both Plato and Xenophon attribute to Socrates and obviously share with him an awareness of the destructive effects of work on the worker as a citizen and a human being. Herodotus identified contempt for work as an attribute of the classical Greeks at the zenith of their culture. To take only one Roman example, Cicero said that “whoever gives his labor for money sells himself and puts himself in the rank of slaves.” His candor is now rare, but contemporary primitive societies which we are wont to look down upon have provided spokesmen who have enlightened Western anthropologists. The Kapauku of West Irian, according to Posposil, have a conception of balance in life and accordingly work only every other day, the day of rest designed “to regain the lost power and health.” Our ancestors, even as late as the eighteenth century when they were far along the path to our present predicament, at least were aware of what we have forgotten, the underside of industrialization. Their religious devotion to “St. Monday” — thus establishing a de facto five-day week 150–200 years before its legal consecration — was the despair of the earliest factory owners. They took a long time in submitting to the tyranny of the bell, predecessor of the time clock. In fact it was necessary for a generation or two to replace adult males with women accustomed to obedience and children who could be molded to fit industrial needs. Even the exploited peasants of the ancient regime wrested substantial time back from their landlord’s work. According to Lafargue, a fourth of the French peasants’ calendar was devoted to Sundays and holidays, and Chayanov’s figures from villages in Czarist Russia — hardly a progressive society — likewise show a fourth or fifth of peasants’ days devoted to repose. Controlling for productivity, we are obviously far behind these backward societies. The exploited muzhiks would wonder why any of us are working at all. So should we.

Black notes that only ”a small and diminishing fraction of work serves any useful purpose independent of the defense and reproduction of the work-system and its political and legal appendages”. In similar vein, the late but great David Graeber saw the futility of most work. Calling this phenomenon ’bullshit jobs’ (Graeber 2018), Graeber sets out to describe what many of us are familiar with: we do useless things to make ourselves feel useful. Because modern society legitimizes itself with having people ’do’ stuff and not ’be’ a certain person. How can you (objectively) measure being? You can’t. But doing, that you can measure. This measurement then qualifies you as a member of society: productive, doing your part (an idiom that is a perfect example how you can’t escape the doing paradigm on a societal level). Graeber’s definition of a bullshit job is: if the position were eliminated, it would make no discernible difference in the world. In many cases these types of jobs are found to be supporting some kind of buraucracy, reporting, assisting decision makers, etc. Our current Matrix has its ways of creating more of these with the clever marketing concept called ’value’ (Petrescu 2019). They don’t make a difference, they create value.

Why would you want to overload the world by doing things that you nor most everyone else see no point in? Why would you waste your time doing pointless things? The easy answer to these questions is ’subsistence’. But there are many other ways to live on this planet. If you keep doing what the society tells you is acceptable or convenient, you will shut your eyes from the problem at hand: climate change.

Legitimizing anarcho-naturism as a solution with The Golden Rule

Our responsibility is to ourselves. We can not properly be held responsible for anything else. Yet the system of representational democracy does just this, holds us collectively responsible for many things, borrows money from creditors with our names on the loan collectively and then makes us pay for the loans. The way this Matrix works is yet another reason to disconnect from it. Or at least stop supporting it as much as possible.

The Golden Rule states: ”Treat others as you want to be treated” (Gensler 2013). From the perspective of climate change, it can first seem curious why you would quit your job and head for the hills. After all, we are facing a global issue here. There are people in need for help and I am running away? But I would see it as a way to get around our predicament. The Golden Rule can be also interpreted in Kantian way as the categorical imperative, particularly its first formulation: ”Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law”. This formulation is somewhat more proactive in nature. It talks about acting, doing things, and doing things is what is appreciated in our society, even when your goal is to exit the society.

Why exit the society? Is it enough to just quit your job and find something else to do, something that is more fulfilling and not bullshit? What an excellent question. Long before the advent of smart phones and 5G and DNA-vaccines, this question had been brought up to the table. In the 1800s, people were realizing the negative impact industrialization was having on society at large. People were rooted out from their family homes in the countryside, forced to move to a large city to look for a job, crammed into small apartments with dozens of other workers, coerced into working long and hard days at factories to make a living. The lowly misery of these people attracted the attention of a certain Friedrich Engels, who felt their situation was not adequate to make up for the suffering they had gone through. He meticulously described the working conditions of the English working class in his ”The Condition of the Working Class in England” (2003 [1845]), originally published in German. Sociology as a science was established by Karl Marx, Max Weber and Emile Durkheim to study these changes. Slowly but surely, the influx of people into cities started to cause issues, something that mayors and other municipal representatives had to start taking care of. Planning and zoning were given a lot more attention, since the earlier modus operandi of old European cities had been rather laissez faire (Sutcliffe 1980).

Against this backdrop of massive societal change, people started to question the changes and their direction. Are we really nothing more than slaves, just working in a different environment? Slavery might not be the right word or context here. Many people believe to be free, govern themselves and their property, and yet their daily actions and options to choose from seem to be eerily limited. They have only so many choices, most of which seem somehow related to running their errands. A more appropriate term, with all its connotations, here would be the Greek word ananke, ”force, constraint, necessity”. Like a force of nature, progress towards modernity necessitates that people leave their family homes and go work in large factories, compulsively manufacturing endless amounts of products, some of which are necessary, others merely decorations, and some just pointless.

Many names in 19th century New England worked upon a vision for the future society at a time when unprecedented changes were taking place and the standard of living was rising faster than ever before. The Transcendental Club was a group of New England authors, philosophers, socialists, politicians and intellectuals of the early-to-mid-19th century which gave rise to Transcendentalism, the first notable American intellectual movement. Transcendentalist believe in the inherent goodness of people and nature, but that society and its institutions — particularly organized religion and political parties — corrupt the purity of the individual. (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 2003; Sacks 2003.) Transcendentalism is a unique mix of European Romanticism, German (particularly Kantian) philosophy, and American Christianity. The impact of this movement can still be seen in the many flavours of American anarchist and radical Christian movements.

Out of the ranks of Transcendentalists rose a couple of names that can be viewed as the progenitors of modern anarcho-primitivism and natur(al)ist anarchy. Ralph Waldo Emerson was the central figure of the Transcendental Club, who together with Henry David Thoreau critiqued the contemporary society for its ”unthinking conformity” and advocated for “an original relation to the universe” (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 2003). Emerson’s Nature (2009 [1836]) poetically embellishes our view of the natural world, while Thoreau’s Walden; or, Life in the Woods (1995 [1854]) is a call for civil disobedience and revolt against the modern world. Another influential natur(al)ist writer has been Leo Tolstoi whose name is frequently mentioned by anarchists. Tolstoi himself was a Christian and pacifist, and his writings have inspired Christian anarcho-pacifism that views the state as ”immoral and unsupportable because of its connection with military power” (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 2017).

Before the Transcendentalist movement, Europe experienced similar trend in philosophy with Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s natural philosophy. Rousseau touched upon many subjects: freedom, free will, authority, nature, morality, societal inequality, representation and government. Like Transcendentalists, Rousseau held a belief that human beings are good by nature but are rendered corrupt by society. ”Rousseau clearly states that morality is not a natural feature of human life, so in whatever sense it is that human beings are good by nature, it is not the moral sense that the casual reader would ordinarily assume” (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 2010). Rousseau’s work is relevant to many of the social movements that currently fight against COVID restrictions, vaccination agenda, building of 5G antenna towers next to where people live, polluting the environment, systemic poverty and general disconnection from the natural world. Rousseau, although regarded as a philosopher, saw philosophy itself negatively, and to him philosophers were ”the post-hoc rationalizers of self-interest, as apologists for various forms of tyranny, and as playing a role in the alienation of the modern individual from humanity’s natural impulse to compassion” (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 2010).

Rousseau’s days did not see capitalism as we see it now. It was later Marx (influenced by Hegel, who in turn was influenced by Rousseau) that put together a treatise that considers the societal change we have seen ever since from industrialism and circulation of capital. But Rousseau’s thoughts about the social contract (1968 [1762]), “child-centered” education (Rousseau 2010), and inequality (Graeber & Wengrow 2018; Rousseau 2008) are still relevant today. Especially when we are faced with many societal forces that are contradictory in nature, each of them pushing us into certain direction, demanding our attention, wanting us to change our beliefs about that one particular aspect that connects with other aspects and forms the Matrix of our reality.

We are once again facing a similar situation as the people did back in the days of the first industrial revolution. Now the industrial revolution has reached its fourth cycle, unimaginatively called ”Industry 4.0” (Marr 2018; WEF 2021), where machines are starting to become autonomous and talk to each other. I used to think technology was cool, and went to work for Google. But at Google I learned that technology is not cool, after all. Not until technology becomes completely open source, it will be used by massive conglomerates to build autonomous weapons systems (Cassella 2018; Johnson 2018) and the industry will keep paying ethics researchers to keep writing arguments for them (Charters 2020). Even though I could work for an industry that, given the current trajectory, will be among the biggest producers of CO 2 in the future Vidal 2017), the idea that I would work for an industry that sees weaponizing their products as the grandest idea of mankind’s future is still gnawing.

Because, it is all just business (Huesemann & Huesemann 2011):

One of the functions of critical science is to create awareness of the underlying values, and the political and financial interests which are currently determining the course of science and technology in industrialized society. This exposure of the value-laden character of science and technology is done with the goal of emancipating both people and the environment from domination and exploitation by powerful interests. The ultimate objective is to redirect science and technology to support both ordinary people and the environment, instead of causing suffering through oppression and exploitation by dominant elites. Furthermore, by exposing the myth of the value-neutrality of science and technology, critical science attempts to awaken working scientists and engineers to the social, political, and ethical implications of their work, making it impossible or, at the very least, uncomfortable for them to ignore the wider context and corresponding responsibilities of their professional activities.

It all seems to be connected with state imperialism and the military-industrial(-intelligence) complex. Lenin’s statement (2008 [1916]) equating capitalism with imperialism still prevails this day: ”imperialist wars are absolutely inevitable under such an economic system, as long as private property in the means of production exists”. The conditions change, but the war machine keeps on churning (soon with autonomous weapons!), with wealthy but crooky investors financing projects that are even more dystopian (Byrne 2013). We may remember what president Dwight D. Eisenhower said about the military- industrial complex (NPR 2011):

”In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist.”

It is exactly these kinds of doomsday scenarios that inspire people like Theodore John ”The Unabomber” Kaczynski. Kaczynski, famous for sending mail bombs to various university professors around the US, holds a doctoral degree in mathematics. (Wikipedia 2021.) Kaczynski was bullied as a child, and it has been suggested that he was part of an MKULTRA experiment in college (The Week 2017). Kaczynski did not send his bombs haphazardly. He wrote long theoretical pieces to justify his actions, most of them being thematically anarcho-primitivist. In 1995, after sending several bombs to university personnel and business executives in 1978-1995, he said to ”desist from terrorism” if he got his text published in media outlets.

In his Industrial Society and Its Future (Kaczynski 1995), a 35 thousand word essay published in The Washington Post, which the FBI gave the name ”Unabomber manifesto”, Kaczynski attributes many our societal ills to ”leftism”. In the manifesto Kaczynski details how two psychological tendencies, “feelings of inferiority” and “oversocialization”, form the basis of ”the psychology of modern leftism”. Feelings of inferiority are taken to mean the whole spectrum of negative feelings about self: low self-esteem, feelings of powerlessness, guilt, self-hatred etc. Oversocialization is the process of socialization taken to extreme levels:

24. Psychologists use the term “socialization” to designate the process by which children are trained to think and act as society demands. A person is said to be well socialized if he believes in and obeys the moral code of his society and fits in well as a functioning part of that society. It may seem senseless to say that many leftists are over-socialized, since the leftist is perceived as a rebel. Nevertheless, the position can be defended. Many leftists are not such rebels as they seem.

25. The moral code of our society is so demanding that no one can think, feel and act in a completely moral way. For example, we are not supposed to hate anyone, yet almost everyone hates somebody at some time or other, whether he admits it to himself or not. Some people are so highly socialized that the attempt to think, feel and act morally imposes a severe burden on them. In order to avoid feelings of guilt, they continually have to deceive themselves about their own motives and find moral explanations for feelings and actions that in reality have a nonmoral origin. We use the term “oversocialized” to describe such people.

Kaczynski goes on to describe how this oversocialization causes a person to feel guilt and shame for their actions, especially in the context of performing as society expects them to perform. He writes how this concept of oversocialization is used to determine ”the direction of modern leftism”. Further on, Kaczynski describes how modern man needs goals to strive for, to not run the risk of developing serious psychological problems. This goalsetting activity he denotes ”power process”. But these goals can be real or artificial. Setting a goal is “surrogate activity” if the person devotes much time and energy to attaining it, does not attain it, and still feels seriously deprived. It is just a goal for goalsetting’s sake, the unfulfilled other side of the coin of power process. Kaczynski then connects these concepts to the many societal ills (excessive density of population, isolation of man from nature, excessive rapidity of social change and the breakdown of natural small-scale communities such as the extended family, the village or the tribe) by describing how modern society, with all its marketing and advertising creating artificial needs, disrupts the power process, mankind’s search for itself and meaning-making in life. He sees social hierarchies and the need to climb up them, the ”keeping up with the Joneses”, as surrogate activity.

”Because of the constant pressure that the system exerts to modify human behavior, there is a gradual increase in the number of people who cannot or will not adjust to society’s requirements: welfare leeches, youth gang members, cultists, anti-government rebels, radical environmentalist saboteurs, dropouts and resisters of various kinds”. This gradual increase, then, the system tries to ’solve’ by using propaganda, ”to make people WANT the decisions that have been made for them”. In regards to technology, the ”bad” parts cannot be separated from the ”good”, and thus we are constantly facing the dilemma between technology and freedom, new technology being introduced all the time, and new regulations being introduced to curb the negative effects of the technology and at the same time stripping us of our freedoms. Kaczynski concludes, that revolution is easier than reforming the system.

Later, Kaczynski released another of his anti-technological theses. In Anti-Tech Revolution: Why and How (2015) Kaczynski presents a ”comprehensive historical analysis explaining the futility of social control and the catastrophic influence of technological growth on human social and planetary ecological systems.” This time Kaczynski talks more about how to start an anti-tech movement and how to keep it going. The text reads like a mathemathical proof of sorts, it presents ”rules”, ”propositions” and ”postulates” why the technological system will destroy itself (eg. Russell’s Paradox resulting in chaos in a highly complex, tightly coupled system) and why a successful anti-tech movement needs clear goals to avoid some of the errors revolutionary movements have made, which are elaborated in the book. Violence is not offered as a solution in the book, it is seen more like a mishap of sorts, a suboptimal outcome of a revolutionary movement. But it talks about power. Kaczynski got to learn the hard way how the feeling of powerlessness breeds desperate actions that would have been otherwise unnecessary. The book also talks about climate change and related issues, from a mathematic systems theoretical point of view.

Institutions that are in the business of social engineering and behavioral modification, such as the Tavistock Institute in the UK or the CIA in the US, would have us believe that Kaczynski’s actions were ”defences against anxiety” that can be seen as ”withdrawal, informal organization, reactive individualism and scapegoating” (Hills et al. 2020), and to some extent this is true. But Kaczynski interprets the actions of these institutions stemming from technological progress in our society Kaczynski 1995):

117. In any technologically advanced society the individual’s fate MUST depend on decisions that he personally cannot influence to any great extent. A technological society cannot be broken down into small, autonomous communities, because production depends on the cooperation of very large numbers of people and machines. Such a society MUST be highly organized and decisions HAVE TO be made that affect very large numbers of people.

This uniformity of a large hierarchical modern society then forces its will on people (Kaczynski 1995):

119. The system does not and cannot exist to satisfy human needs. Instead, it is human behavior that has to be modified to fit the needs of the system. This has nothing to do with the political or social ideology that may pretend to guide the technological system. It is not the fault of capitalism and it is not the fault of socialism. It is the fault of technology, because the system is guided not by ideology but by technical necessity.

We have once again encountered ananke, necessity. Now, if we consider ourselves as the lonely decision makers in this society, what could we do? We can try and fight fire with fire, but such fights end up producing only pain and casualties (Taylor 2013). Anarcho-naturists and anarcho-pacifists understand that (unnecessary) fighting in most cases does not work. Sometimes fighting is warranted, but it is beyond the scope of this essay to examine those cases. Sending bombs to people’s offices may get you some attention and even make somebody quote your manifesto in an essay, but it is not solving the issue, something which the Unabomber addressed in his later texts. If working a job indirectly supports the military-industrial complex NewScientist 2011), what good does it do? The military-industrial complex is the biggest source of pollution in the world (The Conversation 2019; Acedo 2015), detaching yourself from this complex is imperative. Even if they would manage to convince us with their psyops that they are willing to change and that climate change is an important issue (Ahmed 2014), it would still be the biggest polluter that is controlling the conversation. It has even been suggested that they are behind this climate buzz (Light 2014). Is your job doing that much good in society that it outweighs the cons? If I need to act responsibly, but cannot fight the system nor conform, while at the same time keeping in mind our looming climate disaster, the only reasonable and peaceful response is to exit the system altogether.

Biodynamism’s naturality and parsimony

Owning responsibility and transforming the world implies taking some kind of action. We have already seen how feelings of powerlessness and lack of self-worth can lead to destructive actions. But there are an unlimited amount of actions that can be taken, that are not based in feelings of powerlessness but empowerment.

Exiting society might sound like a lonely project, and some people might rightfully feel lonely when all their peers still want to live in the illusion. But it does not have to be so. A lot of soul-searching needs to be done, and that is usually done in privacy, focusing upon oneself, but beyond that there are ways how to go off-grid and drastically reduce your carbon emissions.

One of the key concepts that will be our guiding principle here is degrowth (Paulson 2017), which ties into values such as organicity, naturality and parsimony. We will want to have less production of artificial things, and more organic and natural things. By artificial we mean long supply chains and many phases of production with modern high technology that produce a large amount of climate effects. By natural we mean using primitive technology, mostly all-natural or recycled materials and something that can be produced even alone, given enough time. Primitive technology does not exclude electricity, it just means producing it differently.

Rudolf Steiner, Austrian philosopher, social reformer, architect, and theosophist, the founder of Anthroposophy and a great reformer of science in matters of spirit, started the first intentional form of organic farming, known as biodynamic agriculture, after he had given a series of lectures on the topic in the last year of his life. (Paull 2011.) Steiner had many spiritual experiences during his life, which lead him to start the Anthroposophy movement. He wanted to apply the scientific process into spiritual realm, inquiring it as it would be as real as our material world. Inquiring this spiritual world helped him access knowledge he claims to not have been access otherwise (Steiner 2011 [1918]). Anthroposophist self-inquiry can be seen as Foucauldian ”technology of the self” that ”provide an intervention mechanism on the part of active subjects, injecting an element of contingency to everyday encounters and alleviating the determinist effect that technologies of power would have otherwise” (Skinner 2012).

Steiner’s thoughts about agriculture are still relevant (Paull 2011):

In 1924 Steiner commented that, “Nowadays people simply think that a certain amount of nitrogen is needed for plant growth, and they imagine it makes no difference how it’s prepared or where it comes from” Steiner, 1924b, pp.9-10). He made the point that, “In the course of this materialistic age of ours, we’ve lost the knowledge of what it takes to continue to care for the natural world” (Steiner, 1924b, p.10).

Our current system seems to think exactly in this way, that if we just compensate our wreaked havoc by investing in ’green’ technology (Elegant 2019), it will all be ok and rainbows in the sky. But it will not. No one is even double checking if the companies that say that they are now carbon neutral actually proactively try to make our world greener. They can just buy a renewable energy company and say now we are green and do nothing else. Some would argue that going ’carbon neutral’ like these massive corporations are doing it is not the way to do it: “’green’ infrastructures are creating conflict and ecological degradation and are the material expression of climate catastrophe” (Dunlap 2020).

Steinerian biodynamism ”encompasses practices of composting, mixed farming systems with use of animal manures, crop rotations, care for animal welfare, looking at the farm as an organism/entity and local distribution systems, all of which contribute toward the protection of the environment, safeguard biodiversity and improve livelihoods of farmers” (Turinek et al. 2009). While modern biodynamic studies focus on agroecological factors such as nutrient cycles, soil characteristics, and nutritional quality (Reganold 1995; Droogers & Bouma 1996), Steiner himself was quite metaphysical in his lectures and paid attention to details such as kingdoms of nature, planetary influences, biorhythms, incarnated and environmental ethers, and the Zodiac (Steiner 2004 [1958]; Nastati 2009).

By shifting to more natural ways of living, we may help Gaia (Lovelock 1991; Singh 2007) heal in many other ways than just reduce our climate emissions. By realizing that we are actually living on the skin of a fairly large and complex organism, we will stop treating it as a plain source of material resources, and start bonding with it, tune into its consciousness and establish two-way communication, just like the natives have done in America.

The way of the natives ought to be our current way, since there is no reason why the natives could not guard the lands they have before. One of the greatest fears of people speaking for private property rights is that managing resources collectively would mean exhausting them. There is no Tragedy of Commons. Just because you are materially poor does not mean that you are any less competent steward of land and wealth, as proposed by Elinor Oström (2009). Acting for climate is not an investment allocation problem. The natives need their land back so that they could do their best to fight the destruction of our ecosystem. The Outokumpu supply chain in Brazilian rainforests, Elon Musk and Bolivian lithium mines, Papua New Guinea indigenous conflict, mining in Lapland in traditional Sami herding areas, Australian uranium mining in indigenous lands… these are all pointless conflicts.

There are also many other ways of staying grounded and in touch with nature, while at the same time cultivating sovereignty. Many of these things revolve around feeding the most immediate community next to you. They reflect ideas such as mutuality, solidarity, organicity, and naturality. Permaculture is a term coined by David Holmgren to describe ”an approach to land management and philosophy that adopts arrangements observed in flourishing natural ecosystems. It includes a set of design principles derived using whole systems thinking. It uses these principles in fields such as regenerative agriculture, rewilding, and community resilience” (Wikipedia: Permaculture 2021). Permaculture has many branches including ecological design, ecological engineering, regenerative design, environmental design, and construction. It also includes integrated water resources management that develops sustainable architecture, and regenerative and self-maintained habitat and agricultural systems modeled from natural ecosystems (Holmgren Desing Services 2007).

Earthships are 100% sustainable homes that are both energy efficient and modern. Earthsips are built with natural and repurposed (recycled) materials, they heat and cool themselves without electric heat, they use solar energy to power electric appliances, they collect all of their water from rain and snowmelt, they re-use their sewage water to fertilize plants, and there’s an indoor garden that grows food in vertical growing spaces (Reynolds 2021). Ecovillages are a ”human-scale, full-featured settlement, in which human activities are harmlessly integrated into the natural world in a way that is supportive of healthy human development and can be successfully continued into the indefinite future” (Gilman & Gilman 1991).

Clifford Harper had a set of drawings imagining an alternative in his book Radical Technology (Harper & Boyle 1976). In them, he shows many of the ideas that were themes in the German garden city movement in the beginning of 20th century (Bollerey & Hartmann 1980), such as collectivised gardens, autonomous housing estates, and community workshops. The book introduces us ’radical technology’, which spans basically all of the concepts we have discussed up to this point: organic agriculture, biodynamic agriculture, vegetarianism, hydroponics, soft energy, insulation, low-cost housing, tree houses, shanty houses, ’folk-built’ houses using traditional methods, houses built from subsoil, self-built houses, housing associations, solar dwellings, domestic paper-making, carpentry, scrap reclamation, printing, community & pirate radio, collectivised gardens, collective workshops for clothesmaking, shoe repair, pottery, household decoration and repairs, autonomous housing estates, autonomous rural villages, etc.

These concepts, while they seem simple, are still empowering, they are meant to let people enjoy they fruits of their labour. Last but certainly not least is the concept that all of these things fall under, alternative (or, appropriate) technology. Alternative technologies are those ”which offer genuine alternatives to the large-scale, complex, centralized, high-energy life forms which dominate the modern age” (Winner 1979). Alternative technologies seek to solve the problems technocentric thinking has caused in society: technical scale and economic concentration, level of complexity or simplicity best suited to technical operations of various kinds, division of labor and its alleged necessity, social and technical hierarchy as it relates to the design of technological systems, and self-sufficiency and interdependence regarding the lives of individuals and communities. Many of these solutions have been developed in Africa, where problems have had to be solved, but resources have been scarce in actuality.

Appropriate technology holds great promise in ways that are currently underappreciated in our society (Huesemann & Huesemann 2011):

As has been mentioned repeatedly throughout this book, the primary goal of technology in our current economic system is to increase material affluence and to generate profits for the wealthy by controlling and exploiting both people and the environment. In view of the reality of interconnectedness, this is neither environmentally sustainable nor socially desirable. In this chapter we discuss how to design technologies which reflect the values of environmental sustainability and social appropriateness. We also emphasize the importance of heeding the precautionary principle in order to prevent unintended consequences, as well as the need for participatory design in order to ensure greater democratic control of technology. Finally, as a specific example of an environmentally sustainable and socially appropriate technology, we discuss the positive contribution of local, organic, small-scale agriculture.

Conclusion

This essay has presented the reader with ramblings of a person who is familiar with Critical Theory, who would like to build a stronger connection to nature, and who is having a major identity crisis in life. I have expressed, albeit feebly, my will to emancipate myself, to exit the Matrix. In Finnish they would say ”Sota ei yhtä miestä kaipaa”, and in George S. Patton’s words this expression would be ”Hell, they won’t miss me, just one man in thousands.”

In this essay I seem to have extensively quoted the Unabomber manifesto. This is not to say that Kaczynski had exceptionally good motives or justifications for his actions. He killed many people and is in prison now. Kaczynski’s ideas are not unique. Quoting his manifesto serves merely to prove one point: he is the product of his environment. Mental illness is no longer a taboo and things have progressed somewhat since Kaczynski’s days. It could be argued that Kaczynski’s writings were just projection of his own feelings of shame and guilt he had gone through. But his mental condition, should he be diagnosed with one (Amador & Reshmi 2000), does not invalidate the things he’s written. In many ways his writings are now more relevant than ever. When we have tech billionaires talking about inserting neuralinks into your brain and downloading thoughts straight from the headquarters, we can really see the manifesto dots connecting.

I wish it would have been just the mental load caused by a ’surrogate activity’ of keeping up with the Joneses that was the cause of all this, but no, it’s the real deal now. When we have corporate executives and federal commissions defending autonomous weapons systems and saying building such systems is a ’moral imperative’ (Gershgorn 2021), you know we have reached peak civilization. It’s all downhill from now on. All participation in society will support this moral imperative, and I don’t want to have anything to do with it. While many would get back to nature for reasons of convenience, such as better health, Rousseau himself would have gotten back to nature ”to feel God in nature” (LaFreniere 1990). It is this kind of humanist transcendentalism (not transhumanism) that we will need again, to realize what we have done to our planet, to realize what needs to be done to abolish the war machine consuming it, and to make ourselves whole again.

References

Acedo, A. (2015) Change the Military-Industrial Complex, not the Climate. Latin America in movement. <https://www.alainet.org/en/articulo/172152>, accessed 15.3.2021.

Ahmed, N. (2014) The age of climate warfare is here. The military-industrial complex is ready. Are you? The Guardian. <https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth- insight/2014/may/30/climate-change-war-conflict-military-industrial-complex-syria-egypt-uprising>, accessed 15.3.2021.

Amador, X. F. – Reshmi, P-O. (2000) Defending the Unabomber: Anosognosia in Schizophrenia. Psychiatric Quarterly, 71 (4), 363-71.

Black, B. (2021) The Abolition of Work. <https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/bob-black-the-abolition-of-work/>, accessed 13.3.2021.

Bodo, T. – Gimah, B. G. (2020) The Pollution and destruction of the Niger Delta ecosystem in Nigeria: Who is to be blamed? European Scientific Journal, 16 (5), 161-182.

Bollerey, F. – Hartmann, K. (1980) A patriarchal utopia: the garden city and housing reform in Germany at the turn of the century. In: Sutcliffe, A. (ed.) The rise of modern urban planning 1800-1914, 135-164. Mansell, London.

Byrne, J. A. (2013) Influential economist says Wall Street’s full of ‘crooks’. New York Post. <https://nypost.com/2013/04/28/influential-economist-says-wall-streets-full-of-crooks/>, accessed 14.3.2021.

Cassella, C. (2018) Thousands of Google Employees Are Worried Their Company Will Help Create Autonomous Weapons. Science Alert. <https://www.sciencealert.com/google-employees-resign-military-ai-project-regulation-ethical-standards>, accessed 14.3.2021.

Charters, D. (2020) Killing on Instinct: A Defense of Autonomous Weapon Systems for Offensive Combat. Viterbi Conversations in Ethics. <https://vce.usc.edu/volume-4-issue-1/killing-on-instinct-a-defense-of-autonomous-weapon-system-for-offensive-combat/>, accessed 14.3.2021.

Collinson, D. L. (2003) ‘Identities and insecurities: selves at work’. Organization, 10 (3), 527-547.

Droogers, P. – Bouma, J. (1996) Biodynamic vs. conventional farming effects on soil structure expressed by simulated potential productivity. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 60 (5), 1552-1558.

Dunlap, A. (2020) Bureaucratic land grabbing for infrastructural colonization: renewable energy, L’Amassada, and resistance in southern France. Human Geography, 13 (2).

Elegant, N. X. (2019) The Internet Cloud Has a Dirty Secret. Fortune. <https://fortune.com/2019/09/18/internet-cloud-server-data-center-energy-consumption-renewable-coal/>, accessed 16.3.2021.

Engels, F. (2003 [1845]) The condition of the working class in England. Am J Public Health, 93 (8), 1246-9.

Emerson, R. W. (2009 [1836]) Nature. <https://www.gutenberg.org/files/29433/29433-h/29433-h.htm>, accessed 14.3.2021.

Financial Times (2020) Investors urge European companies to include climate risks in accounts. <https://www.ft.com/content/dd01aacd-85a0-4577-9700-26f1d6fb26b3>, accessed 13.3.2021.

Gardiner, M. (1996) Foucault, ethics and dialogue. History of the Human Sciences, 9 (3), 27-46.

Gensler, H. J. (2013) Ethics and the golden rule. Routledge.

Gershgorn, D. (2021) Federal Commission Says Developing Autonomous Weapons Is a ‘Moral Imperative’. OneZero. <https://onezero.medium.com/federal-commission-says-developing-autonomous-weapons-is-a-moral-imperative-9effcc4c0692>, accessed 16.3.2021.

Gilman, R. – Gilman, D. (1991) Eco-Villages and Sustainable Communities, a Report for Gaia Trust. Context Institute, Bainbridge Island, Washington.

Graeber, D. (2018) Bullshit Jobs: A Theory. <https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/david-graeber-bullshit-jobs.pdf>, accessed 13.3.2021.

Graeber, D. – Wengrow, D. (2018) How to change the course of human history. Eurozine. <https://www.eurozine.com/change-course-human-history/>, accessed 19.3.2021.

Griffin, P. (2017) The Carbon Majors Database: CDP Carbon Majors Report 2017. <http://climateaccountability.org/pdf/CarbonMajorsRpt2017%20Jul17.pdf>, accessed 13.3.2021.

Harper, P. – Boyle, G. (1976) Radical Technology – Food and Shelter, Tools and Materials, Energy and Communications, Autonomy and Community. Pantheon Books, USA.

Hills, D. – Allen, R. – Drabble, D. (2020) TIHR-2 – Systems thinking at the Tavistock Institute – past, present and future. <https://www.tavinstitute.org/projects/systems-thinking-at-the-tavistock-institute-past-present-and-future/>, accessed 15.3.2021.

Holmgren Design Services (2007) Essence of Permaculture. <https://www.transitionmonty.org/uploads/6/5/4/9/6549206/essence_of_pc_ebook_1.pdf>, accessed 18.3.2021.

Huesemann, M. H. – Huesemann, J. A. (2011) Technofix: Why Technology Won’t Save Us or the Environment. New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, British Columbia, Canada.

Jones, M. D. H. – Henderson-Sellers, A. (1990) History of the greenhouse effect. Progress in physical geography, 14 (1), 1-18.

Johnson, K. (2018) Google’s AI chief on AutoML, autonomous weapons, and the future. VentureBeat. <https://venturebeat.com/2018/05/09/googles-ai-chief-on-automl-autonomous-weapons-and-the-future/>, accessed 14.3.2021.

Kaczynski, T. J. (1995) Industrial Society and Its Future. <http://editions-hache.com/essais/pdf/kaczynski2.pdf>, accessed 14.3.2021.

Kaczynski, T. J. (2015) Anti-Tech Revolution: Why and How. <https://archive.org/details/KaczynskiAntiTechRevolutionWhyAndHow_201803/>,accessed 15.3.2021.

Konstantinou, E. – Muller, R. (2020) More than a list: The Grand Challenges approach and legitimate agents of social change. In: Proceedings of the British Academy of Management (BAM) Conference in the Cloud, September 2-4, 2020.

Kost, E. (2020) How the remote workforce is fighting climate change. <https://www.freelancer.com/articles/starting-your-business/the-remote-workforce-and-climate-change>, accessed 13.3.2021.

LaFreniere, G. F. (1990) Rousseau and the European Roots of Environmentalism. Environmental History Review, 14 (4), 41-72.

Lenin, V. I. (2008 [1916]) Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. <https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/imperialism.pdf>, accessed 14.3.2021.

Lovelock, J. (1991) Healing Gaia: Practical Medicine for the Planet. Gaia Books Ltd., UK.

Light, S. (2014) Valuing National Security: Climate Change, the Military, and Society. UCLA Law Review, 61, 1772-1812.

Marr, B. (2018) What is Industry 4.0? Here’s A Super Easy Explanation For Any-one. Forbes, Sep 2, 2018. <https://www.forbes.com/sites/bernardmarr/2018/09/02/what-is-industry-4-0-heres-a-super-easy-explanation-for-anyone/?sh=5b60d0af9788>, accessed 14.3.2021.

Mitchell, J. F. (1989) The “Greenhouse” effect and climate change. Reviews of Geo-physics, 27 (1), 115-139.

Morningstar, C. (2019a) The Manufacturing of Greta Thunberg For Consent: A Design to Win — A Multi-Billion Dollar Investment [VOLUME II, ACT I]. <http://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/2019/09/11/the-manufacturing-of-greta-thunberg-for-consent-volume-ii-act-i-a-design-to-win-a-multi-billion-dollar-investment/>, accessed 13.3.2021.

Morningstar, C. (2019b) A 100 trillion dollar storytelling campaign. <http://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/2019/10/06/a-100-trillion-dollar-storytelling-campaign/>, accessed 13.3.2021.

Nastati, E. (2009) Commentary on Dr Rudolf Steiner’s Agriculture Course. Mark Moodie Publications, UK.

NewScientist (2011) Revealed – the capitalist network that runs the world. <https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228354-500-revealed-the-capitalist-network-that-runs-the-world/>, accessed 14.3.2021.

NPR (2011) Ike’s Warning Of Military Expansion, 50 Years Later. <https://www.npr.org/2011/01/17/132942244/ikes-warning-of-military-expansion-50-years-later>, accessed 14.3.2021.

O’Leary, P. (1993) Ethical attentiveness. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 12 (2-4), 139-151.

Oelofse, S. H. H. – Hobbs, P. J. – Rascher, J. – Cobbing, J. E. (2007) The pollution and destruction threat of gold mining waste on the Witwatersrand: A West Rand case study. In: 10th International Symposium on Environmental Issues and Waste management in Energy and Mineral Production (SWEMP, 2007), Bangkok, 11-13.

Oström, E. (2009) A General Framework for Analyzing Sustainability of Social-Ecological Systems. Science, 325.

Paull, J. (2011) Attending the First Organic Agriculture Course: Rudolf Steiner’s Agriculture Course at Koberwitz, 1924. European Journal of Social Sciences, 21 (1), 64-70.

Paulson, S. (2017) Degrowth: culture, power and change. Journal of Political Ecology, 24 (1), 425-448.

Peters, R. L. – Darling, J. D. S. (1985) The Greenhouse Effect and Nature Reserves. BioScience, 35 (11), 707-717.

Petrescu, M. (2019) From marketing to public value: towards a theory of public service ecosystems. Public Management Review, 21 (11), 1733-1752.

Reganold, J. P. (1995) Soil quality and profitability of biodynamic and conventional farming systems: A review. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture, 36-45.

Reynolds, M. (2021) Design Principles – Earthsip Biotecture. <https://www.earthshipglobal.com/design-principles>, accessed 18.3.2021. <https:Rousseau, J-J. (1968 [1762]) The Social Contract. Translated by Maurice Cranston. Penguin Books, Hammondsworth.

Rousseau, J-J. (2008 [1754]) Discourse on the Origin of Inequality. A Discourse on a Subject Proposed by the Academy of Dijon: What is the Origin of Inequality Among Men, and is it Authorised by Natural Law? <https://www.academia.edu/download/61519662/5019_Rousseau_Discourse_on_the_Origin_of_Inequality20191215-105020-65l66a.pdf>, accessed 18.3.2021.

Rousseau, J. J. (2010) Emile, or, on education: Includes Emile and Sophie, or, the solitaries (The Collected writings of Rousseau, Vol. 13). Translated and edited by Christopher Kelly and Allan Bloom. University Press of New England, London.

Sacks, K. S. (2003) Understanding Emerson: ”The American scholar” and his struggle for self-reliance. Princeton University Press.

Singh, R. P. B. (2007) Gaia and Ecological A Wakening: Message of Hinduism for Deeper Understanding. The Oriental Anthropologist, 7 (2), 213-233.

Skinner, D. (2012) Foucault, subjectivity and ethics: towards a self-forming subject. Organization, 20 (6), 904–923.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2003) Transcendentalism. <https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/transcendentalism/>, accessed 14.3.2021.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2010) Jean Jacques Rousseau. <https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rousseau/>, accessed 18.3.2021.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2017) Anarchism. <https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/anarchism/>, accessed 14.3.2021.

Steiner, R. (2004 [1958]) Agriculture Course: The Birth of the Biodynamic Method. Translated by George Adams. Rudolph Steiner Press, UK.

Steiner, R. (2011 [1918]) Knowledge of the Higher Worlds and Its Attainment. <http://logoilibrary.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/A-Knowledge-Of-The-Higher-Worlds.pdf>, accessed 16.3.2021.

Sutcliffe, A. (Ed.) (1980) The rise of modern urban planning, 1800-1914 (Vol. 1). Mansell, UK.

Taylor, B. (2013) Religion, Violence and Radical Environmentalism: From Earth First! to the Unabomber to the Earth Liberation Front. In Muddle, C. (ed.) Political Extremism, vol. IV. Sage Publications.

The Conversation (2019) US military is a bigger polluter than as many as 140 countries – shrinking this war machine is a must. <https://theconversation.com/us-military-is-a-bigger-polluter-than-as-many-as-140-countries-shrinking-this-war-machine-is-a-must-119269>, accessed 15.3.2021.

The Week (2017) MKUltra: Inside the CIA’s Cold War mind control experiments. <https://www.theweek.co.uk/86961/mkultra-inside-the-cias-cold-war-mind-control-experiments>, accessed 14.3.2021.

Thoreau, H. D. (1995 [1854]) Walden; or, Life in the Woods. <https://www.gutenberg.org/files/29433/29433-h/29433-h.htm>, accessed 14.3.2021.

Turinek, M. – Grobelnik-Mlakar, S. – Bavec, M. – Bavec, F. (2009) Biodynamic agriculture research progressand priorities. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 24 (2), 146–154.

WEF (2021) Centre for the Fourth Industrial Revolution. <https://www.weforum.org/reports/health-and-healthcare-in-the-fourth-industrial-revolution-global-future-council-on-the-future-of-health-and-healthcare-2016-2018>, accessed 14.3.2021.

Wikipedia (2021) Ted Kaczynski. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski>, accessed 14.3.2021.

Winner, L. (1979) The Political Philosophy of Alternative Technology: Historical Roots and Present Prospects. Technology In Society, 1, 75-86.

https://kapitaali.com/the-new-hippies/

#anarcho-primitivism #Anti-technology #naturalism #parsimony #pragmatism #Ted Kaczynski #The Golden Rule #Unabomber #Sekalainen

[sasorikigai]

Saturn and Uranus, for commander hanzo

headcanon   prompts   based   on   the   planets || @yetremains || accepting

𝐒𝐀𝐓𝐔𝐑𝐍   ! what   does   your   muse   fear   ?   what   do   they   worry   about   ?   what   restricts   them   ?   what   exactly   keeps   them   bound   to   reality   ?   what   are   their   responsibilities   ?   do   they   have   any   obligations   ?   maybe   to   work   ?   another   person   ?   do   they   have   a   set   routine   ?   what   does   the   word   ‘ law ‘   mean   to   them   ?   unfortunately   this   beautiful   planet   can   create   strain   and   stress,   so   does   your   muse   stress   easily   ?   do   they   struggle   with   anxiety   or   similar   issues   ?   if   so,   how   do   they   deal   ?   saturn   is   the   planet   of   reality,   which   is   hard   to   face.   does   your   muse   face   their   issues   head   on,   or   do   they   tend   to   live   in   their   own   little   world   ?

Hanzo likes to be aware and in control of himself in his surroundings. He is known for his fast reflexes and adaptability, and the idea of losing this is appalling to him. He wants to know that he can remain in control of himself and not become helpless, trapped, or out of control. He is a natural-born leader with enormous visions and dreams for the future. He is driven by an intense desire to make a difference in the world and live up to his fullest potential. He hates the idea of living a less than remarkable life. He has a deep yearning to stand out and achieve his dreams at all costs.

One of the defining characteristics of Commander Hasashi is his insight into ethics, identity, emotions, and values. He lives his life constantly weighing the personal worth and integrity of each decision he makes. However, this doesn’t mean that he always is “goody-goodies” who follow the law to a tee. It means that he spends his life forming a personal moral code that is subjective to him. He wants to know what’s worth living and dying for – what’s true and authentic and meaningful, as he is less concerned with rules and societal constructs and more focused on his individual sense of right and wrong. Where he does place his loyalty, it is 100 percent and beyond. When he decides something is right, he would believe in it unwaveringly. He trusts his personal beliefs with a steadfastness that many fail to notice because he can appear so easy-going and extraordinarily natural and tolerant on the outside. For him, it’s difficult to spell out what his moral code is, for he just knows it to his bones. He has an instinctive gut feeling of what is right and wrong or how phony or authentic someone is being. He also has very strong feelings about justice and personal freedoms. Unless it is already established, he dislikes structures and institutions that place unnecessary rules or limits on people and force him to conform to rules that limit his creativity and/or individuality.

He is likely to feel upset or frustrated when faced with criticism from someone he cares about or trust. Hanzo often takes negative feedback fairly personally. To help him feel more comfortable, feedback should be delivered in a patient, sensitive way, avoiding any exaggeration or overt criticism. He may also feel overwhelmed by large groups of strangers, despite this being the proverbial part of his profession as the Commander of Tactical Retrieval Squadron of Special Forces or SWAT, depending on his verse. He prefers to keep up with people he knows intimately beyond being mere acquaintances and may have a hard time feeling comfortable around those he doesn’t, simply coming across as nonchalant, intimidating, unapproachable, etc., especially if there are too many of them at once. When faced with stress, Hanzo can become very critical and overly sensitive, often imagining bad intentions where there weren’t any. Being prone to insecurity, he can focus all his attention on pleasing those who give him security. This may lead him to become staunchly attached to a toxic relationship, structure, or belief system that provides him some sort of affirmation or security. He can become overly dramatic when under stress, finding fault with almost everything (in himself, not in others so to speak). He can experience low energy, a feeling of depression or pessimism. He becomes uncharacteristically quiet and withdrawn. If he isexperiencing chronic stress, he may fall into the grip of self-effacement and condemning himself, focusing on his flaws and all the ways they have been hurt by his own incapacities, inadequacies, etc. and how those flaws go against his belief systems and how things “should be”.

Hanzo isn’t likely to run away from his problems, instead, he would get to the bottom of it, and would want to find a way to solve them. He is often good at finding ways to take care of his problems in life, and work hard to keep everything together. He realizes that avoiding or running from his struggles will only make things worse later on, and he doesn’t fear or qualm himself if he appears vulnerable and weak at times. He isn’t goint to ever back down from challenges, instead, he will work to find a way to efficiently take care of any of his issues in life head-on. 

]𝐔𝐑𝐀𝐍𝐔𝐒 ! this   particular   planet   is   the   planet   of   sudden   inspiration   and   change,   so   how   does   your   muse   handle   unpredictable   changes   ?   how   do   they   handle   planned   and   known   changes   ?   what   about   inspiration   ?   do   they   do   whatever   inspires   them   in   that   moment,   or   is   their   inspiration   something   that   takes   time   to   develop   and   build   ?   what   makes   your   muse   special   ?   what   makes   them   different   and   eccentric,   if   they   are   ?   where   do   they   create   the   most   change   ?

Hanzo finds himself conflicted when it comes to change itself; while his initial instinct is to feel hesitant when new changes come his way. While he is typically adventurous and flexible, he is also deeply attached to his loved ones and the lives they together create for themselves. He needs time to reflect on change, to analyze the implications and discern how it will affect his personal relationships. He wants to feel that there is a meaningful reason to pursue a change, and he needs to feel supported and given reasonable facts and specifics about why the change needs to happen in the first place.

While he often does not mind the idea of change, and is excited by adventure. He dislikes experiencing too much change in his personal relationships, since he takes them very seriously. Change that involves the people in his life no longer being around them, will make Commander Hasashi very unhappy and grumpy. If the change simply involves his environment or lifestyle, he is often willing to see the bright side of things. He dislikes if things stay the same for too long, and are excited by new experiences. He is very capable of looking at the positive side of his life, despite naturally leaned towards being pessimistic, welcoming whatever may come his way. He is good at going with the flow, finding that the best way to live his life.

Hanzo is most strongly inspired by the people that he loves. If he believes that the people around him are in need, he will do whatever it takes to get the job done. He is deeply inspired by the people that he cares about, and do not want to disappoint them. He fears being unable to provide others with what they need, and feel very passionately about making his loves one happy. If he somehow lacks motivation, the best move is for his loved one to inspire him with his or her own personal need for Hanzo to get something done. Making him realize that it would make the people he cares for happy, is the biggest inspiration possible.

Because he is proverbially known for being passionate, creative and artistic. But a lesser-known facet of his personality is the deep, intuitive connection he feels to the world around him. He is a keen observer of his environment, which means he is also quick to recognize patterns and predict events prior to their unfolding. Commander Hasashi, with his perceptiveness and astute emotional intelligence, can often call out people’s motivations or desires with an uncanny accuracy that is usually attributed solely to intuitive types. His emotional intelligence, combined with his careful observation and analysis puts him a cut above the rest in terms of intuiting abilities. Also, Hanzo Hasashi is a very layered individual, and often interested in the aesthetic quality of his environment, and can notice the smallest of changes, differences in texture, color, sound etc. He notices everything, usually. 

#✗ obsessive cathartic (headcanon) #✗ the ineffable testimony of spawned hellfire (scorpion) #✗ ugly syllables of conjured vindictive crimson (modern au) #yetremains

[philosophycorner]

Musings on Attitudes and Western Philosophical Culture

It doesn’t take a lot to notice that people in the West are obsessed with binaries: in ethics an action is either right or wrong, with no gray areas; in politics there’s only left and right or conservative and liberal, with no one truly occupying the liminal and no one venturing outside the boundaries of right- or left-wing ideology. This is why it is crucial to eventually leave the Western hemisphere and study Eastern philosophy. The Taoists following Lao (hereafter called Laoists) identified a position that is neither objectivist nor subjectivist.

Interestingly, psychologists and moral pluralists have identified this approach without making it explicit. When making moral considerations, I am consistently and now unconsciously Kantian, but I recognize in certain situations, a Kantian analysis doesn’t get the job done. That does not make me an objectivist nor a subjectivist; it makes me what Laoist Shih were, an attitudist. Do I consider that a person is an end in themselves if I realize that this person is a Narcissist or anyone on the Dark Tetrad? For sake of myself, I simply cannot proceed with a Kantian analysis. I now have to prefer, for this specific situation, an egoist approach. The best course of action caters to my self-interest. Anyone who cares about their mental well-being knows that they have to cut this toxic person out of their lives, completely and utterly. Once you realize that someone has been treating you as a means, there is no sense in which you can continue to treat them as an end. The basis of most Tetrad relationships is transactional, i.e., what can I get out of you? This is emotionally and potentially, financially draining and for your own sake, you have to cut this person out of your life.

What if instead you’re a CEO with a department full of employees near retirement who are less productive than a department full of upstart, younger employees? On a business analysis, firing the former group who presumably earn higher salaries or wages makes the most sense. Despite being a Kantian, I can see here that a utilitarian approach makes sense. Which group is harmed less? The former group is near retirement and is less capable of pivoting if I were to lay them off while the latter group is more capable of pivoting, of picking up the pieces, and finding a way to continue their careers. So in the interest of causing less harm, my attitude in this case assumes the character of a utilitarian.

This is the essential hallmark of moral pluralism. It isn’t relativist nor does it have any pretense of objectivism. It is like the Laoist sayings in the Tao Te Ching. It is the undertaking of an attitude that either assails conventional wisdom or opens up the mind to other possibilities. It is the old “slow and steady wins the race.” This isn’t to contradict the prevailing objective fact that the faster participant usually wins, but that it is entirely possible to win a race strategically and methodically. It is to take a certain attitude toward a tradition or norm.

Eastern philosophy has the potential to disabuse the West of its infatuation with binaries. I can identify as a moral objectivist and in a given situation make the most nihilist of statements: at bottom, there’s no such thing as good and evil. For human purposes, it is perhaps necessary to proceed as though a moral act is a universal law; this is the perspective of any Kantian. However, absent human minds or minds roughly equal to our own, there is no sense in which we can call a supernova evil because it wipes out a solar system and causes the extinction of fish on a planet 65 lightyears away (which is actually a strong theory scientists have with regards to an extinction of massive fish during the Devonian period, about 360 million years ago). We can’t call a blackhole evil for spaghettifying a cornucopia of celestial objects. Likewise, we can’t call a star good for eventually providing warmth to a solar system, even on the assumption that the system is life-bearing. For non-sentient purposes, qualifications of good and evil are simply vacuous. It is no doubt a nihilistic attitude, but it says nothing about my approach to sentient ethics.

Attitudism is inherent in moral pluralism and elsewhere, but it should be allowed into the philosophy of the West. Binaries, either-or, all-or-nothing, my way or the highway, present no solutions whatsoever. Binaries create more problems than they solve. In politics, I assume right-wing attitudes all the time. I have never been a proponent of the vacuous “Defund the police,” for it is a simple fact that Police Reform will require more government funding and that even defunding the police to divert funds to other causes like education or mental illness awareness guarantees complacency with the same, corrupt, failing system of policing currently in place across many inner cities. I think the call to defund the police has harmed left-wing candidacies, which is the same thing right-wing politicians say. Does that make me right-wing? Absolutely not. Yet it is the case that I have adopted their attitude for this specific situation.

Upon closer analysis, my readers will realize that they do this sort of thing often. Lack of civility, charity, and a penchant for being disingenuous describes today’s dialogue, especially in the United States. Leave it to an opponent to accuse you of a position you don’t espouse. Christians often assume that every atheist in the world is a moral relativist, leaving no room for the possibility that an atheist can be an objectivist. This happens because of attitudism, namely an attitude an atheist shares about a specific situation or even a general state of affairs. Richard Dawkins, famous for pointing out the universe’s blind indifference, was speaking about the general state of the universe and this is now taken to mean that Dawkins is a moral nihilist. I share his attitude with regards to the universe, but I don’t share that attitude as it concerns human relationships and society, nor do I share that attitude in matters concerning the Earth like Climate Change, the humane treatment of household pets, hunting and poaching, discussions on the personhood of non-human animals like primates and dolphins, and so on. 

For Western philosophy to progress beyond where it is, it needn’t fear relativism. It should also allow for attitude-based statements speaking to pertinent scenarios. It should renounce binary thinking altogether and accept gray areas, incorporating the insights of thinking in a more diverse manner. Western philosophers also have to stop categorizing thinkers into traditions not robust enough to honor the thought of given philosophers. For purposes of ethics, situational and contextual approaches have to be included as well. 

Readers, do you think Western philosophy’s obsession with binaries is not as detrimental as I think? Is it possible that it is beneficial?  

#philosophy #ethics #political philosophy #politics #eastern philosophy #taoism #attitudism #attitudes #logic

[itsclydebitches]

Is buying the new Harry Potter game supporting transphobes because I've been seeing a lot of that on twitter? Not playing it. Pirating is fine, but actually paying for it.

Hi, anon!

I’ve seen a lot of the same and had initially thought to post my thoughts on the issue… before I got a very angry ask condemning me for a post where I admitted that I thought the game looked great and was excited to play it. I can no longer link to that post because I deleted it: a late night, impulsive decision made in an effort to try and protect myself from further flaming. Thus, I considered ignoring this ask under the same justification… before realizing that it might not matter in the long run. The Harry Potter: Legacy trailer has been out for just a few days and already I have gotten that furious ask, been told off by a friend for mentioning the trailer, and was questioned (antagonistically) about why I had added a Harry Potter related book to my Goodreads list. They’re small and potentially coincidental anecdotes, but it feels as if any engagement with Harry Potter is slowly coming under scrutiny, not just the (supposed—more on that below) crime of purchasing the new game. Given that I will always engage with Harry Potter related media, if there’s any chance such subtle criticism will continue regardless of whether I make the “right” choice to boycott the game or not, I might as well explain my position. Especially for someone who asked politely! Thanks for that 💜. 

Which leads to the disclaimer: Any anon hate will be unceremoniously deleted. This is a complicated issue and I intend to write about it as such. I ask that any readers go into this post with good faith and a willingness to acknowledge that this situation isn’t as black and white as they may prefer it to be. If that’s not something you can emotionally handle—which is 100% fine. Some subjects we’re simply not inclined to debate—or if you’re just looking to get in a cheap shot, please hit the back button.

Right. Introduction done. Now here’s the tl;dr: saying things like “Buying this game is inherently selfish/transphobic” isn’t the hot take people want it to be. Is boycotting Legacy one (very small—we’ll get to that too) way of showing support for the trans community? Yes. Is buying the game proof that you’re a selfish transphobe?  No. This isn’t a bad SAT question. Legacy boycotters are to trans supporters as Legacy buyers are to  ___? The argument that someone is selfish for buying the game is basically that you are choosing a non-essential video game over the respect and lives of trans individuals, but the logic breaks down when we acknowledge that purchasing a game has no real life impact on a trans individual’s safety, support, etc.   

“But Clyde, you’re giving Rowling money. She is then using that money to support anti-trans organizations. Thus, you have actively put more harm into the world.” Have I? I���m not going to get into whether/how much/what kind of money Rowling is receiving from this project because the fact is we don’t know and we’ll likely never know. Suffice to say, she probably will get some portion of any $60/$70 purchase. The real question is whether those sales have any meaningful impact. Reputable information on Rowling’s net worth is hard to come by, but it seems to be somewhere between 600 million and 1 billion pounds. Or, to put it another way: a fuck ton. And money keeps rolling in from a franchise that is so, so much bigger than a single video game. It literally doesn’t matter how much money you might put in her pocket via Legacy because she’s already so goddamn rich she can do whatever she wants. If Rowling wants to give a million dollars to the heinous “charity” of her choice, she can. She will. You are not directly contributing to this horror because that money may as well already exist. Every person in the world could refuse to buy this game and she’d shrug, going about her disgusting life because it literally does not affect her in any meaningful way. You’re refusing to give the murderer a knife when they’re got direct access to a knife-making factory. Horrible as it is to hear, you can’t stop them from doing something horrific with that tool. 

For me, this is the straw argument of the Harry Potter world. Not straw as in strawman, but literally straws. Remember how everyone was talking about plastic straws, swore off them, and subsequently deemed anyone who still used one to be selfish people who didn’t care about the environment? It didn’t matter if you had a certified “good” reason for using one (disability) or a “selfish” reason (carrying straws everywhere on the off chance you wanted a drink is a pain in the ass)—you’re a horrible person who wants the planet to die. Same deal here. If you can swear off straws, great! Do what tiny bit of good you can. But if you can’t or even don’t want to give them up, the reality is that your “selfishness” doesn’t make a significant difference in the world. The amount of plastic corporations are pouring into the ocean makes your actions inconsequential. It’s not like voting where every small, individual act adds up to a significant total. This is your lack up against others’ staggering abundance. It’s not adding a few drops of water until you have a full bucket, it’s trying to un-flood the boat with a teaspoon while someone else is spraying it with the hose. Have you, on the most technical level, made a difference by moving that teaspoon of water out of the boat? Yes. Is it a difference that holds any meaning in regards to the desired outcome? Not really. Now apply all that to Rowling. She is so phenomenally wealthy—with additional wealth coming in every day—that your purchase of Legacy is a teaspoon of water in her ocean of funds. It’s inconsequential.

“But Clyde, buying this game would support her and supporting her sends the message that what she believes is okay.” Exact same argument as above. JKR’s fame is so astronomical that no video-game boycott could ever make a dent in it. For every 100 people who swear off her work there are another 1,000 who continue to engage with both her writing and the writing related to her world because she is that prominent. Harry Potter is one of the largest franchises of all time, second only to things like Pokémon and Star Wars. This isn’t some indie creator who you can ignore into silence. The reality is that Rowling is here to stay and we have to take far more substantial acts to counteract that influence. 

Even more importantly, buying the game is not evidence that you support her views and the black and white belief that it does is an easy distraction from those harder “How do we improve the lives of trans people?” questions. I started compiling a list of stories with problematic authors only to realize the number of incredibly popular texts with awful histories attached to them unnecessarily increased the length of an already long post. Everything from Game of Thrones to Dr. Seuss—if you love it, chances are one of the authors involved has a history of misogyny, racism, homophobia, etc. Which I don’t say as a way of excusing these authors, nor as a way to silence the justified and necessary call outs on their work. Rather, I bring this up to acknowledge that engaging with these stories cannot be concrete evidence for how you view the minority group in question. The reasons for consuming these stories are incalculable and at the end of the day no one needs a “correct” reason for that consumption (my teacher forced me to read the racist book, I only watched the homophobic TV show so I could call out how horrible it was, etc.) If fiction were an indicator of our real life beliefs we’d all be the most horrifying creatures imaginable. I may be severely uncomfortable with the queer baiting in Supernatural, but if a friend says they bought the DVD collection my response is not, “How dare you support those creators. You’re homophobic.” In the same way, someone purchasing Legacy should not generate the response, “How dare you support her. You’re transphobic.” There’s a miles’ worth of pitfalls in connecting the statements “You purchased a game based on the world created by a transphobic author” and “You yourself are transphobic.” 

So if buying Legacy does not add additional harm to the trans community from a financial perspective, and it doesn’t make a dent in Rowling’s platform, and playing a game is not evidence of your feelings towards the group the author hates… what are we left with? “But Clyde, it’s the principal of the thing. I don’t want to support a TERF” and that is an excellent argument. Your morals. Your ethics. What you can stomach having done or not done. But the “your” is incredibly important there. People need to understand that this is their own line in the sand and that if someone else’s line is different, that doesn’t mean they’re automatically a worse person than you. For example, I have made the choice not to eat at Chick-Fil-A. Not because I believe that me not giving them $3.75 for a sandwich will make a difference in their influence on the world, but because it makes a difference to me. It helps me sleep at night. So if not purchasing Legacy helps you sleep at night? That’s a fantastic reason not to buy it. But the flipside is that if someone else does purchase it that is not a reliable reflection of their morals, no more than I think my friends are homophobic for grabbing lunch at Chick-Fil-A now and then. Sometimes you just want a sandwich. 

“But Clyde, why would you want to buy it? Rowling is such a shit-stain I don’t understand how anyone can stomach supporting her—whether that support has an impact or not. Maybe someone eats at Chick-Fil-A because it’s close to them and they’re too busy to go elsewhere, or it’s all they can afford, or they don’t know how homophobic they are. There are lots of reasons to explain something like that. But you’re not ignorant to Rowling’s problem and there’s no scenario where you have to play this game, let alone spend money on it. So why?”

The reality is that I will likely be buying Legacy, second-hand if I can, but new if it comes to that, so I’ll give some of my personal answers here, in descending order of presumed selfishness:

5. Part of my work involves studying video games/Harry Potter and as a researcher of popular culture, my career depends on keeping up with major releases: good and bad. I often engage with stories I wholeheartedly disagree with for academic purposes, like Fifty Shades of Gray.

4. I find the “Just pirate it!” solution to be flawed. I’ve spent the last four months struggling to get my laptop fixed and I currently have no income to buy another if it were to suddenly develop a larger problem. I am not going to risk my $2,000 lifeline on an illegal download, no matter how safe and easy the Internet insists it is. 

3. We’ve been told that Rowling has not been involved in Legacy in any significant manner and I do want to support Portkey. No, not just financially because I know many others have insisted that everyone good has already been paid. Game companies still need to sell games. That’s why they exist. There’s a possibility that a company with just two mobile games under its belt will be in trouble if this completely flops. Is my purchase going to make or break things? No. Same reality as whether it will put new, influential money in Rowling’s pocket to do horrific things with. But I’d like to help a company that looks as if they put a lot of heart and energy into a game only to get hit with some real shit circumstances outside of their control. Even if they’re not impacted financially or career-wise… art is meant to be consumed. I know if I wrote a Harry Potter fic and everyone boycotted it because they want nothing to do with Rowling anymore, I’d be devastated. Sometimes, you can’t separate supporting the good people from supporting the bad. Not in a media landscape where thousands of people are involved in singular projects.

2. I’m invested in reclaiming excellent works created by horrible authors. That’s fandom! We don’t know much about Legacy yet—this is pure, unsubstantiated speculation—but this new story could be a step forward from Rowling’s books, giving us some of the respect for minority groups that she failed at. That’s the sort of work I want to promote because Harry Potter as a concept is great and I think it’s worth transforming it for our own needs and desires. The reality is that as long as Rowling is alive she’ll benefit from licensed material, but if that material can start taking her world in better directions? I want to support that too.

1. I literally just want to play it. That’s it. That’s my big justification. I think it looks phenomenal and I was itching to get my hands on it the second the trailer dropped. And you know what? I’m not in a good place right now to deny myself things I enjoy. I don’t need to tell anyone that 2020 has been an absolute horror show, but for me certain things have made it a horror show with a cherry on top. Not a lot gets me excited right now because we’re living in the worst fucking timeline, so when I find something that makes me feel positive emotions for a hot second I want to hang onto it. I have no desire to set aside that spark of happiness in a traumatic world because people on the Internet think it makes me selfish. Maybe it does, but I’m willing to let myself be a bit selfish right now. 

Which circles back to this issue of equating buying a game with active harm towards the trans community. It honestly worries me because this is a very, very easy way to avoid the harder, messier activism that will actually help the queer community. When someone says things like, “You’re choosing a stupid video game over trans lives” that activism is performative. Not only—as demonstrated above—is purchasing a game not a threat to trans lives or ignoring the game a way of protecting trans lives, it also gives people an incredibly easy out while still seeming ‘woke.’ Not all people. Maybe not even a significant portion of people, but enough people to be worrisome. “I’m not purchasing that game,” some people post and then that’s it. That’s all they do, yet they feel like they’ve done their duty when in fact they’ve made no active difference in the world. Are you donating to trans charities? Are you speaking up for your trans friends when someone accosts them? Are you circulating media by trans authors? Are you educating your family about trans issues? Are you listening to trans individuals and continually trying to educate yourself? These are the things that make a difference, not shaming others for buying a game.

All of this is not meant to be an argument that people shouldn’t be absolutely revolted by Rowling’s beliefs (they should) and that this revulsion can’t take the form of rejecting this game wholeheartedly. This isn’t even meant to be an argument that you shouldn’t encourage others to boycott because though the financial impact may be negligible, the emotional impact for you is very real. I 100% support anyone who wants to chuck this game into the trash and never talk about it again—for any reason. All this is meant to argue is that people shouldn’t judge others based on whether they purchase this game (with a side argument that we can’t limit our activism to that shaming). That’s their decision and this decision, significantly, does not add any real harm to the world. Your fellow Harry Potter fan is not the enemy here. We as a community should not be turning our visceral on one another. Turn it on Rowling. She’s the TERF, not the individual who, for whatever reason, decided they wanted to play the game only tangentially related to her.  

If Twitter and Tumblr are any indication, I can imagine the sort of responses this post may generate: “That’s a whole lot of talk to try and convince us you’re not a transphobe :/ ” For those of you who are determined to simply things to that extent, there’s nothing I can say that will change your mind. Please re-read the disclaimer and consider whether yelling at me over anon will benefit the trans community. For those of you who are still here, I do legitimately want us to think critically about the kinds of activism we’re engaging in, how performative it might be, whether it harms the community in any way, and (most significantly) whether it’s actually moving us towards a safe, respective world for trans people to live in. Personally, I don’t think telling Harry Potter fans that they’re transphobic for buying Legacy will generate any good in this world, for them or for the trans community. 

At the end of the day only you can decide whether you can stomach buying this game or not. Decide that for yourself, but make that decision knowing that there’s no wrong answer here.  

#harry potter #mymetas #Anonymous

[c0smicheaux]

Ninth House In the Signs

Aries-

When the ninth house is in the sign of Aries, a person can be too passionate about their beliefs, not allowing others to express their system of convictions. Fighters for religion, ethical approach, college, or their own progress of any kind are seen here. In general, this is a strong position that finds energy in the future and draws a person towards positive change. However, any ties to the past will make their dreamland vivid and blur the direction they are supposed to follow. Once they feel they are on the right path, with a mission to accomplish and deep beliefs leading forward, these are the exact people who will learn about boundaries, conflict, and fiercely achieve any goal they set out to reach. They tend to find purpose only in things they are truly passionate about and wither in any circumstances that don’t invigorate them and make them feel alive. They need their talents put to use and the fire in their stomach constantly burning in order to live a long, creative and healthy existence.

Taurus-

If the ninth house is set in Taurus, the purpose of a person’s life is always found somewhere in the material world. Experience needs to be built in the real world, through financial and physical matters, and this is the exact reason why these individuals turn to education in fields of finance, agriculture, cooking, or real estate. For as long as they don’t lack initiative and primal energy, they can truly be fantastic in practical issues, but also tend to close up for new experiences if they get hurt or disappointed. This is a tricky position for as much as the beneficent sign of Taurus can be mellow it can also be lazy, static, or stiff to accept change and the beauty of constant movement. There is a special joy these people find in tradition if their Venus is beneficently set, and they will strive to reach family values and practical pleasures as much as they can in this lifetime.

Gemini-

The ninth house in Gemini leads to growth through communication. These individuals will learn new things quickly and with passion, while at the same time having trouble holding on to large chunks of knowledge or finding synthesis for everything they’ve learned. To mend the troubles found in overthinking, they need to also learn to stay concise and focused on one point at a time. If they have too many goals at once, they will rarely manage to reach any of them, and the most important thing the ninth house in Gemini has to teach, is how one should think and use their words. If they find true emotional intimacy, it will usually give them a strong basis to improve their approach and help them thrive in fields of oratory skills, public exposure, trade, and information technology.

Cancer-

With the ninth house in Cancer, there is always a simple striving held in a person’s path – to find peace. This is not an easy mission for someone with their mind standing in the way, for our human nature often doesn’t allow enough silence and peace to reach that much needed state of clarity and peace. A strong purpose is always in connection with family issues that have to be resolved or gained through their own ability to form calm relationships with their partner and children. Very often, this position will point to the possibility of life abroad, in case it is confirmed with at least two more significations in the chart. Their greatest teachers are found in their own heart and they will come to see that only people they love can actually teach them anything at all. This will lead to some hurtful emotional experiences for the purpose of each feeling they have might be to teach, rather than last or provide them with that much needed peace.

Leo-

When the ninth house is set in the sign of Leo, we see that someone has to clarify the image of self apart from their family, upbringing and values taught at home. If they are too proud to accept that truth is relative to all people, they can become pushy and force their opinions and convictions on everyone around them. The key to a healthy existence here is often hidden in their chase for emotional satisfaction and the Moon will speak of their ability to forgive, move forward, and accept their feelings instead of trying too hard to remain in a rational mode. Awareness will grow as soon as they realize how vulnerable they actually are, face the fact that they are human and that their emotional core gives them much more benefits than weaknesses. They will learn from dominant figures, their boss and their father, but rarely have enough respect for the feminine side within to achieve their incredible full potential.

Virgo-

The ninth house in Virgo speaks of the focus on helping others, charity work, and matters of modesty and detail. Those who were born with this house position often have the need to learn how to heal and rationally understand the intelligence of their physiology and practical issues in the material world. However, their ego stands in their way and they will always have a challenge of their Sun to overcome to truly reach the state of wisdom and purpose. Something is always used and needs fixing in Virgo, and it is quite common for these individuals to have problems while traveling for choosing accommodation that is too cheap to be enjoyed, or overpaid for the one they get. They will have a flare for literature and many linguists and writers will have this position accented, if their tenth house supports strong materialization of everything they have learned.

Libra-

If the ninth house is set in Libra, there is something strangely confusing in a person’s belief system, the main problem being the fact that their beliefs seem to be defined by other people. They will find many role models in this lifetime and need to overcome their self-criticism in order to truly reach their desired state of mind, physical state, or professional goals that they see as their calling. Hard work is needed for their plans to materialize and they will often be stuck in their dreamland, or when disappointed too many times, in their world of envy and feelings of incompetence. Relationships with quality will have to stand the test of time, and it is very often that these individuals remarry, sometimes only to find that marriage is too serious for them in the first place. When well supported, they will blossom in areas such as law, diplomacy, marriage counseling, and all activities done with a partner or someone they have an emotional bond with.

Scorpio-

With the ninth house in Scorpio, we have to understand that a person will make choices that many would think of as strange. In the most positive manifestation, this will give one an incredible depth of mind, belief in the power of planet Earth, connection to endless pools of inner energy and a tendency to study science, psychology, or even occult teachings. Still, we have to keep in mind that practically speaking, these individuals have a belief system rooted somewhere in the river of their ancestors, highly unconscious and strange for many people around them. Their convictions will be powerful and obvious in their manifestations, while their need to learn about deep matters that others don’t want to deal with often sets them apart from their group at school, college, or at any family gathering. They have to find a way to satisfy their inner craving for deep understanding of the Universe and Unity, but they will find it only if they mend their broken relationships and realize that no man is born into this world to be alone.

Sagittarius- 

The ninth house in the sign of Sagittarius speaks of a higher mind, in a way, and shows one’s need to travel, learn, and widen their horizons as much as possible. The trouble with this position is held in the inability to go deep enough to actually ground ideas and entire mental belief systems. Even though these people can be incredible teachers, attorneys, gurus, or motivational speakers, they will often have trouble accepting change as a necessary tool for improvement. Sticking to their moral convictions without a doubt in their mind, they will forget that change is the only thing that will truly help them regenerate. Aiming high, they don’t have a clear idea of everything going on at planet Earth’s surface and need a reality check from time to time, just to remember that distances are there to be crossed, not just to be observed.

Capricorn-

If one’s ninth house is set in the sign of Capricorn, their beliefs can be annoyingly stiff. It will be very hard for them to make a change in pace or direction once they set out to do something. Their main problem is hidden in the real purpose of all things in their lives. This is why they sometimes have to exchange their practicality and common sense for a dream or two. The main objective with this position is to achieve a state of acceptance that allows these individuals not to push their convictions on everyone around them. There will be an ease in learning about ancient teachings, history, substance, and mathematics if their Saturn is well set in a sign that gives it dignity. However, responsibility they need to take seems to be too distant for them to reach its understanding. Once they do, they will finally have a chance to create a solid foundation for their future endeavors.

Aquarius-

With the ninth house in Aquarius, one’s striving and desires are never ordinary. Learning through symbols will be as easy as it gets, which makes these people turned to astrology, mathematics and programming. The problem will arise when a person with this ninth house doesn’t feel the need to accept responsibility for their own life. A truly disappointing thing here hides in the fact that their routine is shattered enough to make them too tired to learn everything that interests them. This great mind will be truly disturbed by the lack of substance, seriousness to their approach, and a sort of superficial Air-like nature that won’t allow them to sink deep enough to create a strong foundation for their ideas to land. If they take matters in their own hands and make a plan they will stick to at all times, they will feel their energy rise. Finally, this will result in their creativity leading them to incredible innovative moments they have been wishing for since they were born.

Pisces-

If someone’s ninth house is set in the sign of Pisces, there is definitely a mission they should follow in this lifetime. In case they haven’t found their right calling, these people will be dreamers, prone to stressful experiences that could have been avoided if they gave everyone in their life enough freedom. They cannot be tied down and shouldn’t ever try to bond too strongly to other people. When they give freedom they will get freedom to grow and find their right direction in life before they start feeling like its whole meaning is lost. The sign of Pisces creates magic, but also rules all poisonous and unexplored areas of life. This will lead to education in chemistry, pharmacy, psychology or sailing. For as long as these individuals are not asleep but wide awake and pursuing their passion, they will have a chance to truly leave a mark in this world.

Source; astrology-zodiac-signs dot com

#astrology #astrology facts #house astrology #astrology posts #astrology planets #houses in the signs

[kurtwagners]

you critize atla all that much which fine whatever you can do that but, your blog is plastered in marvel stuff which also has tons of problems in regards to representation and which mostly is run by white guys, one of which is actually a trump supporter so like, what's valid and what's not? Why do you get to pick and choose what is and isn't problematic to like?

Another thing is why are you so adamant on shitting on communists and anarchists and leftists in general? What do you even believe it that you think makes you so much better and wise that anyone with that sort of ideology? All you do is blog about fandom related things and consume comics by the two biggest media companies on the planet and you think that somehow makes you an authority on anything?

I’m so glad this ask gave me a gateway to rant about comics I criticize marvel and DC literally all the time, this is like the 5th time but I love to say it: Post-9/11 iterations of iconic superheroes of American culture, especially ones like Batman and Iron-man, are literally the manifestation of contemporary myth-making of American capitalism, as well as American-exceptionalism neoliberal copganda. My last super viral post was completely shitting on how Tibet is represented in Doctor Strange, you should check it out (it’s old though so not my best). It’s kind of an academic hobby of mine to rip apart comics because I love media studies a lot. My entire final project for my Tibetan Studies course in uni was on orientalist misrepresentations of Tibet in Western superhero comics such as Doctor Strange and Iron Fist and the “Shangri-La” phenomenon (I can link if you want I’d have to revise some sections though, haha)! Also if you follow my social media you probably see me preaching the book Capitalist Superheroes: Caped Crusaders in the Neoliberal Age by Dan Hassler Forest, it’s one of my favorite pieces of academic media studies writing, it completely breaks down the concept of the American “superhero" using a Marxist lens and I am obsessed with it. Warning though it’s REALLY dense but I think it’s extremely well-researched and really puts into perspective how important media studies can be when analyzing the political characteristics of nations, and how media shapes the minds of youth in their image.

I said multiple times I don’t mind that people enjoy and consume Avatar, I just wanted to point out it’s flaws in representing the Tibetan people, which is rooted in the writers being white. Comics also does this too, and I have written about this problem both on Tumblr and in an academic setting! So many fictional works created in the Western World has political implications that are problematic in nature, which is why I as a fan enjoy it and also enjoy criticizing and dissecting it! It helps me better understand how politics are ingrained in almost every aspect of our lives! You can enjoy things you are critical of, so please don’t worry! 

I agree with you, enjoying superhero comic companies is definitely a double edged sword, because of their problematic existence as corporate entities while they are now hiring more diverse writers and artists for specific projects that give positive representation for marginalized groups, like Ms. Marvel and Ironheart. I personally try my best as a fan of superhero comics to minimize my impact in contributing to the corporate side and white creators pockets by torrenting popular, large comic titles written by white men. I only actively purchase small series that give writers of color and women a salary and a platform, such as my absolute favorite writers Saladin Ahmed, Greg Pak, G Willow Wilson, Eve Ewing, and Ta Nehisi Coates! They’re all excellent writers so check out their comics and outside works! I also don’t watch superhero movies anymore, I just generally don’t like them that much outside of Black Panther, aka the best superhero film.

Time for a promo: My favorite superhero team of all time, the Champions, focusses on characters of color like Kamala Khan, Miles Morales, Sam Alexander, Amadeus Cho and Riri Williams, and is currently being written by esteemed black academic Eve Ewing. The next issue of her Champions reboot is coming out in October 2020. It’s going to focus on how teen superheroes and vigilantes challenge the government and status quo, I’m so excited about it so PLEASE check out your local comic store and buy an issue if you’re interested in supporting comic creators of color writing heroes of color! It really needs financial support after Covid delayed the release. Champions in the past also gave a platform for Indigenous Canadian voices by pulling in Inuit creative Nyla Innuksuk and collaborated with her to create the new Champions member, Inuit superhero Snowguard (my baby), so if you are interested in modern and inspiring indigenous narratives please check out those past issues as well ❤️

And to address your other criticism: not all is how it appears sometimes! I have a more serious political twitter and a fan twitter both, so if you want to see me talk more about politics then fan things please be sure to follow me @chaiiyou on twitter instead! Kind of unrelated but also this is actually a side blog, I have a main blog that’s mostly just pretty photos and aesthetically pleasing stuff @butterchalatte so follow that too if you wish. 

I am a leftist of color (anti-imperialist anarcho-communist would be my best bet but I don’t like labels) myself, who is critical about how Western leftists often romanticize geopolitical situations they are unfamiliar with and nation-states that they have never been to or have been a part of. I hope you understand that leftism, like many things, isn’t a monolith and there are many disagreements and critical discussions happening within the left all the time, groups such as anarcho-communists and marxist-leninist-maoists really aren’t the same. If you happen to fall into the more tankie/authoritarian side of the spectrum, uh I guess sorry if I offended you by criticizing my colonizers lmao but these discourses are fairly common and happen all the time, I’m surprised you’re not familiar with it? Having open, critical discussions within the leftist sphere is what helps us better understand one another and build more substantial praxis together, it’s unhealthy to stick yourself in an echo chamber!

I don’t really get why you’re so spiteful and upset though, I think people who mostly come online to decompress and engage in things like fandom still have a right to have open discussions about politics if they want to. I’m not claiming to be an authority on anything, just sharing my own experiences like everyone else. I wish you well and hope you can find more compassion in your future om mani pedme hum.

Tl;dr: There is no ethical consumption under capitalism

#this is like. my bio on one ask. Thanks! #damn i spent like half my lunch break writing this back to the grind ig

[mindareadsoots]

Okay, let’s break down our villain shot one by one.

Well, this is not at all surprising. I’ve been saying literally for years (much to the chagrin of any Jasper stans out there) that I suspected Jasper would continue to be an antagonist even after she got uncorrupted. For a show that ostensibly doesn’t have “villains,” Jasper is arguably the single most villainous character Steven ever had to face, until Spinel came to Earth with the sole intention of hurting people. Even the Diamonds’ villainous behavior was more a product of Orange and Blue Morality and a woeful lack of parenting skills than outright malice. 

Jasper on the other hand has always been little more than a bully, and her complicated history with fusion goes to show how her worldview stands in stark opposition to Steven’s. Remember, fusion is a physical manifestation of the relationships that form between the characters on the show, and the two worst things to happen to Jasper were a direct result of Jasper abusing fusion to achieve her own goals. This is not a coincidence. 

As for what kind of trouble I expect her to be, she still has her pre-existing set of issues to deal with, but first and foremost, I expect her to struggle with the new direction Steven has taken the gem empire. Jasper was a true believer in the Diamond Authority, and the fact that the Crystal Gem ideology has apparently won out is going to be a tough pill for her to swallow. We also have yet to see how she’s taken the news that Rose Quartz and Pink Diamond are the same person, and my hunch is, “Not well.” I think Jasper’s hatred of Rose outweighs her love for Pink Diamond, and so Steven is going to have to struggle to get on her good side.

Now this is interesting.

That’s definitely our old friend Aquamarine - you can see her distinctive teardrop gem - but she’s found a Ruby to fuse with. I know a lot of people shipped Aqua with Navy as the pair of queen bitches of the universe, or with Leggy for a moirailship, but seeing as how I don’t see any other gems on her, I can only assume she’s fusing with Eyeball. 

Like Jasper, that’s a pair of characters who I’d expect to be disappointed that Rose Quartz “won” the war, after a fashion. What’ll be really fun is seeing what specifically brought those two characters together. We’ve had Malachite, sure, and the Ruby Squad to a degree, but this could be the first antagonistic fusion who actually has a healthy relationship. We’ve never really had a villainous Garnet before, and villain couples who genuinely love each other are totally my jam.

I’m just going through the series mentally trying to think of any time Steven might have sweated on a cactus while he was in the desert, because that’s clearly what this thing is.

I don’t expect a high amount of drama out of this creature, but I hope we do see Steven grappling with the ethical ramifications of him spontaneously creating sentient life. I lowkey think that the development of Watermelon Island may very well mirror how the Diamonds created their civilization. White Diamond cries on a rock one day, and a few millennia later, she’s out conquering the galaxy along with her newly formed race. Something Steven should consider when he lets that particular power of his spin out of control.

There’s not much to go on with this thing. My best guess is that it’s a lost corrupted gem who missed out on the bubble bath. If that’s the case, we could get a funny episode where Steven has to teach the Diamonds how to hunt for a corrupted gem so they can cure her. But it could be a random alien, or a planet eating terror that the Cluster has to fight, or darn near anything else.

The fact that it’s the only character on this splash page that moves suggests that it’ll be particularly important to the season, but in what way is anyone’s guess.

Ah, we got ourselves a couple more Lapises! Lapi? It’s always fun to see gems interacting with other like-gems, so I imagine these two are going to be a thorn in the side of our Lapis.

Alternatively, they could be connected to Jasper in some way. It would be like her to repeat her same mistakes and try to form a new Malachite again. That’d be a pretty grim story line about the cyclical nature of toxic relationships. For their sake, I hope they haven’t fallen in with Jasper though.

And finally the big one.

What’s interesting to me is that White Diamond is the only character who is both here and in the opening group shot. That makes me think she’s not really going to be an antagonist in the usual sense. What I think is more likely is she’ll have some kind of personal breakdown that puts her in danger of hurting herself or others. She never really gave herself the chance to cry over losing Pink the way Blue or Yellow did, and I doubt she’s entirely stopped repressing her feelings just because Steven’s been nice to have around. Either way, despite working her way towards reformation, White Diamond still has a lot of stuff bottled up, and when a being as powerful as her lets that cork out, the explosion is going to have some massive collateral damage.

Bonus Prediction: Whatever White Diamond is going through to put her in the villain shot, Spinel is going to be the one to help her through it.

#su spoilers #steven universe #minda watches steven universe #minda reads #steven universe future #white diamond #jasper #aquamarine #lapis lazuli