Anarchy Pete

I write because the thoughts are healthier out in the open, rather than locked up tight.

[fuckyeahcomicsbaby]

Different Stories Resonate with Different People

[lovingmyselfishard]

I will always reblog this.

[brightwanderer]

I once spent three hours scouring the internet to find this comic again, I will not let that be repeated.

[lynati]

@signoraviolettavalery I meant to ask last night if you’d ever seen this comic before.

[marithlizard]

This is one of the few things I always reblog when it comes round, because everyone should get to see it. 

[viva-1a-resistance]

DO YOU KNOW WHAT I JUST REALIZED

YOU KNOW THE HAIKU BOT???

OFC YOU DO

YOU KNOW THAT MESSAGE HE PUTS AT THE END OF EVERY POST????

"Beep boop! I look for accidental haiku posts. Sometimes I mess up."

YEAH???????

WELL THATS A HAIKU TOO

Beep boop! I look for

accidental haiku posts.

Sometimes I mess up.

NOW YOU LOOK ME IN THE EYE AND TELL ME THATS NOT THE CUTEST THNIG YOUVE EVER HEARD

[the-haiku-bot]

“Beep boop! I look for

accidental haiku posts.

Sometimes I mess up.”

Beep boop! I look for accidental haiku posts. Sometimes I mess up.

[lastvalyrian]

[sodalpiss]

It’s full circle now. He did it, by god he did. What a little champ.

[the-haiku-bot]

It’s full circle now.

He did it, by god he did.

What a little champ.

Beep boop! I look for accidental haiku posts. Sometimes I mess up.

[alledherlu-q-pereon]

[skybluethunderhead-deactivated2]

tagged by @spriteofmushrooms

Favorite Color: It's a tie between Green and Blue.

Last Song: something by Bon Iver (I just checked him out)

Last Movie: No hard feelings

Currently Watching: The Wheel of Time (loving it)

Currently Reading: Technically, this book about certain period in Kazakh history, but I haven't touched it in weeks, because the previous book just wrecked me (it was about famine here)

Currently Working On: blue cotton mesh summer top

Current Obsession: The Wheel of Time, celebrity gossip

tagging: @anarchypete @darth-revan-dark-lord

(only if you want to)

[anarchypete]

tagged by @skybluethunderhead

Favorite Color: Red

Last Song: No One Knows by Queens of the Stone Age

Last Movie: Mystery Men

Currently Watching: What We Do in the Shadows

Currently Reading: Too many to list as I'm an English major. Just finished Tacitus's Agricola

Currently Working On: University

Current Obsession: Magic: the Gathering

[anarchypete]

I used to write rather depressing things on this blog and kind of kept it that way for a long time. I think a lot of that came from not having meds that worked really the way they were supposed to, and because of that, my mood, feelings, and expressions were often from dark places. This isn’t to say that with good meds my moods don’t shift to less lighter shades, but that for too long I dwelled in those pits and tried to make them my own personal space.

That isn’t to say I’ll no longer be doing that, but I want this space to be a bit more lively than it once was, both in the amount of content, but also with the content itself. I had a blog dedicated to writing and art for the longest time, but I am unsure of why I wanted to separate the two; light and dark, when it is only in the depth of black holes that the two are not constantly coexisting.

[funny-tik-toks]

[anarchypete]

I once had a creative writing professor who encouraged us to read at least a little about an author if we truly wanted to understand a creative piece, but I've realized that only works when applying good faith. Looking at JRR Tolkien right now, where it seems everyone wants to be, or believes they are, an expert on Tolkien because of the skin colour of the actors being used in the new shows and media. We have vidoes, audio recordings, and letters to attributed to Tolkien that theoretically help us identify how he would feel about the way his original world is being interpreted or used. That’s lead to me wonderinf if knowing the author is worse than not knowing who the author actually is, because with an anyonymous author, we now have to own our opinion of thought rather than pointing at the original author and twisting what they said as a way to offload our strongly worded opinion and bias onto someone elses shoulders (the author).

[virovac]

People honestly didn’t go “mad” from seeing cosmic horror things in Lovecraft very often. That’s a modern thing, and honestly feels like modified “gorgon”

Usually its stress, paranoia or ptsd from near death experience.

The true terror was not really in seeing something horrifying and alien, but understanding the implications, or not being able to fit it into an existing mental framework.

[logo-comics]

Playing this up could actually create an interesting setup in a narrative, come to think of it. Someone seems fine after dealing with cosmic horrors, so everyone assumes they were fine. Cue some days later, when everything’s settled and they’re able to process what happened, they find that they begin to have a breakdown as it all begins to fall together.

[therobotmonster]

As a simple thought experiment, imagine what encountering something completely recognizable but otherwise impossible would do.

Lets say you walked into the next room, and standing on a piece of furniture was a little man, literally 18 inches tall, at most, in green clothing, clambering and climbing about. I don’t mean like what you’d imagine from a special effect or a cartoon, but a real tiny thing that looked, moved, and acted like an impossibly miniature humanlike creature, the hair wouldn’t be shrunk by proportion, there’d be fewer folicles overall, but more densely packed. You can see the faint veins under the skin, the hairs, the pores, you can smell it, it leaves scuffs, it makes sounds appropriate for its size… and when it sees you, it just looks at you, tilts its head, smiles mischieviously, and darts under the couch, vanishing. The only thing you find is a gold coin, which is real, solid, and rare, having not seen circulation in centuries.

You’ve had, in this scenario, an encounter with a leprechaun. It’s a relatively understandable phenomenon. There’s plenty of tolklore to prepare you for it, the creature is rationally built, has antatomy that makes sense, is similar to yourself enough to be very familiar. It wasn’t even hostile. 

Is your life ever going to be the same? 

In addition to questioning whether you actually saw what you saw, you now have to wonder why you were visited. Wil it come back? If it does can it hurt you? If it can, can you stop it? Where did it come from? Has it always just been there, out of sight? Is it here right now?

And those are just surface level questions. Now, fundamentally, the rules of reality have to be reassessed. If such a thing can exist, what does that say about our understanding of biology and evolution? Moreover, there are suddenly theological implications here, none of which are likely to be cleanly or comfortingly answered in their entirety. 

You’ve just witnessed sone of the single most important encounters in human history, and anyone who hears you talk about it is going to think you’ve lost your mind. The terror and sense of lonliness from that is going to be soul crushing.

Now, replace the leprechaun with something that looks like a deep dream animation brought to life and appears to be both impossible to adequately destroy and possessed of absolute malevolence. Getting attacked by a normal everyday animal can be traumatizing, surviving an encounter with a bloodsucking octopus tree that screams in an alien language from mutiple slathering maws is certrainly beyond the ken of 1930s psychiatric medicine. 

[biggest-gaudiest-poltergeist]

I feel like this post changed me in a way I’m not ready to confront

[wheel-skellington]

thats why i never understood people who belittled that entire genre of horror “oh its just fish people” yes you moron its fish people but WHAT is making people look like fish is much scarier than a person that looks like a fish

[lockejhaven]

Well, this certainly explains why I adore cosmic horror.

Y'know. As a psych major. LOL.

[queermarzipan]

Madness can feel like enlightenment and enlightenment can look like madness

[anarchypete]

Welcome to psychosis.

There are living people who experience stuff like this and yet still have the audacity to wonder how it makes them crazy.

Funny story, actually. I’m an English major with a focus on creative writing and I wrote some pieces that my prof felt fit the bill as fantastic horror genre work, and when she asked me for my inspiration, I was like “Wednesday night at around midnight in the corner of my bedroom.” We had a good, long conversation after that.

It’s all very real to me.

[specialagentartemis]

in middle school during my Intense Greek Mythology Phase, Artemis was, as you can likely guess, my best girl. Iphigenia was my OTHER best girl. Yes at the same time.

The story of Iphigenia always gets to me when it's not presented as a story of Artemis being capricious and having arbitrary rules about where you can and can't hunt, but instead, making a point about war.

Artemis was, among other things--patron of hunting, wild places, the moon, singlehood--the protector of young girls. That's a really important aspect she was worshipped as: she protected girls and young women. But she was the one who demanded Agamemnon sacrifice his daughter in order for his fleet to be able to sail on for Troy.

There's no contradiction, though, when it's framed as, Artemis making Agamemnon face what he’s doing to the women and children of Troy. His children are not in danger. His son will not be thrown off the ramparts, his daughters will not be taken captive as sex slaves and dragged off to foreign lands, his wife will not have to watch her husband and brothers and children killed. Yet this is what he’s sailing off to Troy to inevitably do. That’s what happens in war. He’s going to go kill other people’s daughters; can he stand to do that to his own? As long as the answer is no—he can kill other people’s children, but not his own—he can’t sail off to war.

Which casts Artemis is a fascinating light, compared to the other gods of the Trojan War. The Trojan War is really a squabble of pride and insults within the Olympian family; Eris decided to cause problems on purpose, leaving Aphrodite smug and Hera and Athena snubbed, and all of this was kinda Zeus’s fault in the first place for not being able to keep it in his pants. And out of this fight mortal men were their game pieces and mortal cities their prizes in restoring their pride. And if hundreds of people die and hundred more lives are ruined, well, that’s what happens when gods fight. Mortals pay the price for gods’ whims and the gods move on in time and the mortals don’t and that’s how it is.

And women especially—Zeus wanted Leda, so he took her. Paris wanted Helen, so he took her. There’s a reason “the Trojan women” even since ancient times were the emblems of victims of a war they never wanted, never asked for, and never had a say in choosing, but was brought down on their heads anyway.

Artemis, in the way of gods, is still acting through human proxies. But it seems notable to me to cast her as the one god to look at the destruction the war is about to wreak on people, and challenge Agamemnon: are you ready to kill innocents? Kill children? Destroy families, leave grieving wives and mothers? Are you? Prove it.

It reminds me of that idea about nuclear codes, the concept of implanting the key in the heart of one of the Oval Office staffers who holds the briefcase, so the president would have to stab a man with a knife to get the key to launch the nukes. “That’s horrible!,” it’s said the response was. “If he had to do that, he might never press the button!” And it’s interesting to see Artemis offering Agamemnon the same choice. You want to burn Troy? Kill your own daughter first. Show me you understand what it means that you’re about to do.

[gobsthegoblin]

self care for when you hit rock bottom

i fucking hate self care posts made by neurotypicals so here’s one from someone who Actually Gets It

-can’t shower or take a bath? me either. dry shampoo can make your hair look and feel cleaner, and baby wipes or makeup wipes work great to get the top layer of grime off your skin.

-can’t wash your sheets and make your bed? i feel you. push your blankets out of the way and shake the crumbs off your sheet. it will at least be a bit more comfortable.

-can’t even change out of your dirty pajamas? been there. hit yourself with some febreeze and a lint roller. if you can, brush your hair. if you can’t, hair ties and bobby pins are fantastic.

-can’t make anything to eat? same. if you can, there’s no shame in ordering food. in fact, it’s probably better you eat something rather than go hungry. if you can’t, try and find something that comes pre-made or takes minimal effort to make. at the very least, drink some water.

can’t respond to messages or reach out for help? yeah, i get that. set an alarm for a few hours from now and respond to any messages you need to once you’ve given yourself time to prepare. if they’re Important Messages that need Professional Responses, you can find fill-in-the-blank format rough drafts on google. as far as personal messages go, don’t feel bad for sending a mass “I’m sorry, I’m in a personal emergency right now. I’ll get back to you as soon as I can.” response to everyone.

-can’t even sleep because it’s so bad? asmr videos always knock me out, personally, but i also watch a lot of bob ross. just try to find something quiet and soothing to use as background noise and take your mind off it, or at least give you a more peaceful environment to think about it.

-can’t go for a walk/drive? try opening the blinds or curtains. you’re still exposing yourself to the outside world. baby steps. (i also play animal crossing or sims; it may be virtual but fuck it. i went on a walk.)

-can’t go into work/school? let people know. let your coworkers or classmates know it’s an emergency and you can’t make it. give yourself up to two days, but then you have to go back. ask to have your work emailed to you so you know what you missed.

-can’t brush your teeth and wash your face? makeup or baby wipes and gum or mouthwash. don’t let yourself physically rot bc you’re rotting emotionally.

-remember that you’ve been here before. if you survived then you can survive now. that’s what this is about- survival. you don’t have to be living your Best Life. right now, it’s more than enough that you’re alive.

[sweetdickheadass]

This is the only self car masterpost I’ve ever seen that is feasible for severe depressive episodes

[tooiconic]

Wwwwwoooowww needed this

[firekingandicequeen-deactivated]

Look. Someone that gets it. Rather than just someone who’s never been there “gently reminding you” to shower and eat and drink.

[tthinspoinspo]

🥀

[thatfrenchacademic]

"The biggest issue is students using it, me spotting it and having no recourse whatsoever to do anything about it." can you elaborate a bit further

Hello !

So to explain a bit more: we [aka your lecturers, teachers, teaching assistants, etc...] know that some students will use ChatGPT.

And there is a discussion to be had about how to work with this, how to design assessment which allow students to leverage something which may simply become a fixture of writing in a workplace environment, but that is not the discussion we are having here. Because that is not what we are worried about.

The defensible, problematic situation is: a student straight up entering the essay prompt on ChatGPT, and using the grand skills of Ctrl+C / Ctrl+V, submits it as their own paper.

And our main worry, I think, was for a long time that we would not be able to catch it. That students would, actually, be able to fool us and that we would actually think this was a student who understood the course, who put in the work, and who deserve to be rewarded for their grade. That was the main fear.

But here is the thing.

And listen up, students :

Essays written by ChatGPT :

Suck

Are spotted from a mile away from the person reading it

For real. They suck.

I cannot stress enough how easy they are to spot. You are NOT fooling anyone. I do not need the platform's AI-detecting tool to know when an essay was written by Chat GPT. It is so, very painfully obvious when that's the case.

But the problem then becomes : ok, I have spotted a student who cheated.

What am I even supposed to do with it.

It is one thing to KNOW that an essay was AI-generated, it is another to defend it to a plagiarism committee. First of all, does it actually count as plagiarism ? Second, how do prove, with certainty, that the student did not write it ? How to I convince the plagiarism committee that this is worth looking into ? I am in the role of a police officer, who needs to convince the DA that this is a winnable case, that prosecuting will not be a waste of their time. But I don't have a Similarity Percentage to rely on. I don't have an original source to say "look, this is the exact same wording!" like in a classic plagiarism case.

Best case scenario, I can make my case for thee student to actually be called to the plagiarism committee, where we probe into how, exactly, they wrote their essay, until they fold. Unlikely, morally questionable, and in all likelihood, ineffective on students already so confident in their bullshit that they have the audacity to submit a fully AI-generated work for their finals.

Now, students, gather up, especially if you have considered using Chat GPT this way. Because right now, you might think it means you can get away with it.

But let me tell you something. First, that essay is getting the shittiest grade we can give you. Because you know what is more difficult than a lecturer proving that a student used AI to generate their essay ? A student proving that they deserve a better grade. Once we give you a grade, burden of evidence is on you to prove that you have not been graded properly. And we can come up with 15 reasons why an essay is a shit essay. We put on kids' gloves, when we lecture and give feedback. We give the simplified version of most theories, we give the basics of how to structure an essay, the bar we set is spectacularly low, because students come in good faith, they are learning, they will not be held at the same standard as academics. But if you try to argue that you need a higher grade, when you had the audacity to not write a single word of your work, the kids gloves are going to come off real quick, and your lecturer will be able to very convincingly explain why, actually, giving you a passing grade was a mercy in the first place.

Second. Academics, especially angry academics, are a gossip machine.

You may get a passing grade, and there may be no official note of it in your file whatsoever. But I can guarantee you that your lecturer will chat with their colleagues. That every single one of your essay that year, and the years to come, will be looked at with so much scrutiny I hope your referencing for every single work reaches perfection. Every single paragraph will be looked at with the knowledge that you are likely to have had it AI-generated. Lecturers will tell their TA to look at for That One Student when they grade you .You will not be getting any flexibility from us, no extension without full documentation to support it, no letter of recommendation from any member of the faculty, no word in your favor if you are bordering a grade bracket. If we are feeling especially petty, we might even forget to answer your emails or answer any question you have with such warmth and kindness you really still never feel like asking a question again in our class. And I know that, because that's already happening. I have the name of three undergrads that we know, for a fact, did not write their own essay. Two are not even in my modules at all.

Now. That's pretty mean. But if you have the absolute audacity and lack of ethics required to submit an essay for which you have not written a single word, and thought it would actually work, when your lecturer spent probably more that 80 hours working in this module this term, gave you the opportunity to meet for office hours, to ask any question in person or in email, to have extensions, accommodations, additional time ? When you decided that putting exactly zero second of your time, considered that you were above that - and above other students- and yet we were not able to officially sanction you for it, we had to give you a passing grade, the same passing grade as students who actually made an effort?

Yeah, sorry, you are not getting any sympathy from your lecturers anymore.

[anarchypete]

External Voices in the Snow

This came to me as I was trying to sleep, appropriately enough, as I heard voices battering away at me with what many days feels like the truth. I’m happy enough with it and there was much experimenting involved with acrylic glues mixed with pastels, so I guess I would call it successful for the most part. I hope it’s well recieved in my art class along with my other projects this term, and a friend convinced me to post it.

[dutchovensnuggie]

[thenightling]

I am very disappointed in the people praising the censoring / editing of Roald Dahl’s books.   Let me tell you a little story.   About five years ago I decided to re-visit Treasure Island.  I found an unabridged version.   I was surprised to discover that Long John Silver had a black lover.   Because the book used the term “n–ress” the mention of her was removed from many American editions of the book when I grew up.

Note: I am not saying they removed the N word.  I am saying they removed her *all together.* I didn’t know Long John Silver had a love interest until I was in my thirties and read an unabridged version of the novel. It revealed so much about the story that I hadn’t noticed before. 1.  That Long John Silver believed in love despite what was considered a cultural norm of the time.  He didn’t care about what others considered proper and he was in love. 2.   It shows that even Robert Louis Stevenson acknowledged the existence of interracial couples and yet no movie version I can think of addressed this until the TV series Black Sails. 3. It helped remind me of the culture of the era in which Treasure Island takes place and when it was written, the stigma against interracial relationships that existed in America right into the twentieth century and in some places is still a thing. Sometimes books tell us more than just a story.   They show us how a world was once viewed.   I felt like this was an important discovery, that Long John Silver had a black lover (or wife).   And I was even a little angry that I had been robbed of this in previous readings of the book.   I think the removal of words like “Fat” and “ugly” from Roald Dahl’s books does us a disservice.   It “cleans up” the past and denies a chance for us to learn some of the less pleasant aspects of the past and how and why language has changed since then.    What should be a teaching point and experience is lost in the name of sensitivity.   I felt cheated and it even felt a little racist that Long John Silver’s love interest isn’t mentioned in many editions of Treasure Island.  And I feel that one day there may be similar feelings if people discover they aren’t reading the original versions of Dahl’s books. Try to remember the original reason Ray Bradbury wrote Fahrenheit  451.  It wasn’t about an evil government taking away people’s blooks. It was about this group and that group getting offended at various titles until they just banned everything to try to make everyone happy.    

[gothhabiba]

people who are like “please stop using incomprehensible words like ‘ontological’ and ‘epistemology’ and ‘teleological’ in the social sciences”..... okay but.... counterpoint..... you could consider, god forbid, learning something

[pixelydia]

no fr. like i'm studying physics and everyone understands that a term like 'perturbative quantum chromodynamics' serves a specific purpose and that you can break it down even if you haven't encountered it before. and that's a super niche example! like, it comes up if you're thinking about the possibility of quark matter at the center of high-mass neutron stars.

but in the social sciences and humanities, if you use a word that has a precise meaning and is a VERY helpful thing to be able to refer to (e.g. if your field studies the nature of being then you might want a word for "studying the nature of being"), then people will accuse you of incomprehensibility, inaccessibility, and deliberate obfuscation. the problem must be the bad scary elitist writer, not the reader who expects to be able to understand a field they're unfamiliar with without performing a single google search.

maybe an even better example is medicine. we can accept that there's a reason to refer specifically to a pheochromocytoma rather than another type of tumor. why not extend the same benefit of the doubt to other fields?

(the answer is that some people don't have a desire to learn more because it would challenge their feeling that they know everything already. they've decided the social sciences and humanities simply can't know more than their own intuition about the world. and when they encounter difficulty in understanding the ideas of people who literally do this for a living, they decide there's a problem with their communication instead of just looking it up.)

there are genuine barriers to accessibility in academia. massive, massive barriers. this isn't one. i promise if you take two minutes to look up something new to you it will open up the whole world.

[jessicalprice]

culture isn’t modular

I did a thread (actually several) on Twitter a few years ago about Christianity’s attempts to paint itself as modular, and I’ve been seeing them referenced here in the cultural christianity Discourse, and a few people have DMed me asking me to post it here, so here’s a rehash of several of those threads:

A big part of why Christian atheists have trouble seeing how culturally Christian they still are is that Christianity advertises itself as being modular, which is not how belief systems have worked for most of human history. 

A selling point of Christianity has always been the idea that it’s plug-and-play: you don’t have to stop being Irish or Korean or Nigerian to be Christian, you don’t have to learn a new language, you keep your culture. 

And you’re just also Christian.

(You can see, then, why so many Christian atheists struggle with the idea that they’re still Christian–to them, Christianity is this modular belief in God and Jesus and a few other tenets, and everything else is… everything else. Which is, not to get ahead of myself, very compatible with some tacit white supremacy: the “everything else” is goes unexamined for its cultural specificity. It’s just Normal. Default. Neutral.)

Evangelicals in particular love to contrast this to Islam, to the idea that you have to learn Arabic and adopt elements of Arab culture to be Muslim, which helps fuel the image of Islam as a Foreign Ideology that’s taking over the West.

The rest of us don’t have that particular jack

Meanwhile, Christians position Christianity as a modular component of your life. Keep your culture, your traditions, your language and just swap out your Other Religion Module for a Christianity Module.

The end game is, in theory, a rainbow of diverse people and cultures that are all one big happy family in Christ. We’re going to come back to how Christianity isn’t actually modular, but for the moment, let’s talk about it as if it had succeeded in that design goal. 

Even if Christianity were successfully modular, if it were something that you could just plug in to the Belief System Receptor in a culture and leave the rest of it undisturbed, the problem is most cultures don’t have a modular Belief System Receptor. Spirituality has, for the entirety of human history, not been something that’s modular. It’s deeply interwoven with the rest of culture and society. You can’t just pull it out and plug something else in and have the culture remain stable.

(And to be clear, even using the term “spirituality” here is a sop to Christianity. What cultures have are worldviews that deal with humanity’s place in the universe/reality; people’s relationships to other people; the idea of individual, societal, or human purpose; how the culture defines membership; etc. These may or may not deal with the supernatural or “spiritual.”)

And so OF COURSE attempting to pull out a culture’s indigenous belief system and replace it with Christianity has almost always had destructive effects on that culture.

Not only is Christianity not representative of “religion” full stop, it’s actually arguably *anomalous* in its attempt to be modular (and thus universal to all cultures) rather than inextricable from culture.

Now, of course, it hasn’t actually succeeded in that–the US is a thoroughly Christian culture–but it does lead to the idea that one can somehow parse out which pieces of culture are “religious” versus which are “secular”. That framing is antithetical to most cultures. E.g. you can’t separate the development of a lot of cultural practices around what people eat and how they get it from elements of their worldview that Christians would probably label “religious.” But that entire *framing* of religious vs. secular is a Christian one.

Is Passover a religious holiday or a secular one? The answer isn’t one or the other, or neither, or both. It’s that the framing of this question is wrong.

And Christianity isn’t a plugin, however much it wants to be

Moreover, Christianity isn’t actually culture-neutral or modular. 

It’s easy for this to get obscured by seeing Christianity as a tool of particular cultures’ colonialism (e.g. the British using Christianity to spread British culture) or of whiteness in general, and not seeing how Christianity itself is colonial. This helps protect the idea that “true” Christianity is good and innocent, and if priests or missionaries are converting people at swordpoint or claiming land for European powers or destroying indigenous cultures, that must be a misuse of Christianity, a “fake” or “corrupted” Christianity.

Never mind that for every other culture, that culture is what its members do. Christianity, uniquely, must be judged on what it says its ideals are, not what it actually is. 

Mistaking the engine for the exhaust

But it’s not just an otherwise innocent tool of colonialism: it’s a driver of it. 

At the end of the day, it’s really hard to construct a version of the Great Commission that isn’t inherently colonial. The end-goal of a world in which everyone is Christian is a world without non-Christian cultures. (As is the end goal of a world in which everyone is atheist by Christian definitions.)

Yet we focus on the way Christianity came with British or Spanish culture when they colonized a place–the churches are here because the Spaniards who conquered this area were Catholic–and miss how Christianity actually has its own cultural tropes that it brings with it. It’s more subtle, of course, when Christianity didn’t come in explicitly as the result of military conquest.

Or put another way, those cultures didn’t just shape the Christianity they brought to places they colonized–they were shaped by it. How much of the commonality between European cultures is because of Christianity?

It’s not all a competition

A lot of Christians (cultural and practicing), if you push them, will eventually paint you a picture of a very Hobbesian world in which all religions, red in tooth and claw, are trying to take over the world. It’s the “natural order” to attempt to eliminate all cultures but your own. 

If you point out to them that belief and worldview are deeply personal, and proselytizing is objectifying, because you’re basically telling the person you’re proselytizing to that who they are is wrong, you often get some version of “that’s how everyone is, though.”

Like we all go through life seeing other humans as incomplete and fundamentally flawed and the only way to “fix” them is to get them to believe what we believe. And, like, that is not how everyone relates to others?

But it’s definitely how both practicing Christians and Christian antitheists relate to others. If, for Christians, your lack of Jesus is a fundamental flaw in you that needs to be fixed, for New Atheists, your “religion” (that is, your non-Christian culture) is a fundamental flaw in you that needs to be fixed. Neither Christians nor New Atheists are able to relate to anyone else as fine as they are. It’s all a Hobbesian zero-sum game. It’s all a game of conversion with only win and loss conditions. You are, essentially, only an NPC worth points.

The idea of being any other way is not only wrong, but impossible to them. If you claim to exist in any other way, you are either deluded or lying.

So, we get Christian atheists claiming that if you identify as Jewish, you can’t really be an atheist. Or sometimes they’ll make an exception for someone who’s “only ethnically Jewish.” If the only way you relate to your Jewishness is as ancestry, then you can be an atheist. Otherwise, you’re lying. 

Or, if you’re not lying, you’re deluded. You just don’t understand that there’s no need for you to keep any dietary practices or continue to engage in any form of ritual or celebrate any of those “religious” Jewish holidays, and by golly, this here “ex”-Christian atheist is here to separate out for you which parts of your culture are “religious” and which ones are “secular.”

Religious/secular is a Christian distinction

A lot of atheists from Christian backgrounds (whether or not they were raised explicitly Christian) have trouble seeing how Christian they are because they’ve accepted the Christian idea that “religion” is modular. (If we define “religion” the way Christians (whether practicing or cultural) define it, Christianity might be the only religion that actually exists. Maybe Islam?)

When people from non-Christian cultures talk about the hegemonically Christian and white supremacist nature of a lot of atheism, it reflects how outside of Christianity, spirituality/worldview isn’t something you can just pull out of a culture.

Christian atheists tend to see the cultural practices of non-Christians as “religious” and think that they should give them up (talk to Jewish atheists who keep kosher about Christian atheist reactions to that). But because Christianity positions itself as modular, people from Christian backgrounds tend not to see how Christian the culture they imagine as “neutral” or “normal” actually is. In their minds, you just pull out the Christianity module and are left with a neutral, secular society.

So, if people from non-Christian backgrounds would just give up their superstitions, they’d look the same as Christian atheists. 

Your secularism is specifically post-Christian

Of course, that culture with the Christianity module pulled out ISN’T neutral. So the idea that that’s what “secular society” should look like ends up following the same pattern as Christian colonialism throughout history: the promise that you can keep your culture and just plug in a different belief system (or, purportedly, a lack of a belief system), which has always, always been a lie. The secular, “enlightened” life that most Christian atheists envision is one that’s still built on white, western Christianity, and the idea that people should conform to it is still attempting to homogenize society to a white Christian ideal. 

For people from cultures that don’t see spirituality as modular, this is pretty obvious. It’s obvious to a lot of people from non-white Christian cultures that have syncretized Christianity in a way that doesn’t truck with the modularity illusion. 

I also think, even though they’re not conceptualizing it in these terms, that it’s actually obvious to a lot of evangelicals. (The difference being that white evangelical Christianity enthusiastically embraces white supremacy, so they see the destruction of non-Christian culture as good.) But I think it’s invisible to a lot of mainline non-evangelical Christians, and it’s definitely invisible to a lot of people who leave Christianity.

And that inability to see culture outside a Christian framing means that American secularism is still shaped like Christianity. It’s basically the same text with a few sentences deleted and some terms replaced.

Which, again, is by design. The idea that you can deconvert to (Christian) atheism and not have to change much besides your opinions about God is the mirror of how easy it’s supposed to be to convert to Christianity.

Human societies don’t follow evolutionary biology

The Victorian Christian framing underlying current Western ideas of enlightened secularism, that religious practice (and human culture in general) is subject to the same sort of unilateral, simple evolution toward a superior state to which they, at the time, largely reduced biological evolution, is deeply white supremacist.

It posits religious evolution as a constantly self-refining process from “primitive” animism and polytheism to monotheism to white European/American Christianity. For Christians, that’s the height of human culture. For ex-Christians, the next step is Christian-derived secularism.

Maybe you’ve seen this comic?

The thing is, animism isn’t more “primitive” than polytheism, and polytheism isn’t more “primitive” than monotheism. Older doesn’t mean less advanced/sophisticated/complex. Hinduism isn’t more “primitive” than Judaism just because it’s polytheistic and Judaism is monotheistic. 

Human cultures continue to change and adapt. (Arguably, older religions are more sophisticated than newer ones because they’ve had a lot more time to refine their practices and ideologies instead of having to define them.) Also, not all cultures are part of the same family tree. Christianity and Islam may be derived from Judaism, but Judaism and Hinduism have no real relationship to one another. 

But in this worldview, Christianity is “normal” religion, which is still more primitive than enlightened secularism, but more advanced than all those other primitive, superstitious, irrational beliefs.

Just like Christians, when Christian atheists do try to make room for cultures that aren’t white and European-derived, the tacit demand is “okay, but you have to separate out the parts of your culture that the Christian sacred-secular divide would deem ‘religious.’”

Either way, people from non-Christian cultures, if they’re to be equals, are supposed to get with the program and assimilate.

You’re not qualified to be a universal arbiter of what culture is good

Christian atheists usually want everyone to unplug that Religion module!

So, for example, you have ex-Christian atheists who are down with pluralism trying to get ex-Christian atheists who aren’t to leave Jews alone by pointing out that you can be atheist and Jewish.

But some of us aren’t atheist. (I’m agnostic by Christian standards.) And the idea that Jews shouldn’t be targets for harassment because they can be atheists and therefore possibly have some common sense is still demanding that people from other cultures conform to one culture’s standard of what being “rational” is.  

Which, like, is kind of galling when y’all don’t even understand what “belief in G-d” means to Jews, and people from a culture that took until the 1800s to figure out that washing their hands was good are setting themselves up as the Universal Arbiters of Rationality.

(BTW, most of this also holds true for non-white Christianity, too. I guarantee you most white Christian atheists don’t have a good sense of what role church plays in the lives of Black communities, so maybe shut up about it.)

In any case, reducing Christianity–a massive, ambient phenomenon inextricable from Western culture–to the specific manifestation of Christian practice that you grew up with is, frankly, absurd. 

And you can’t be any help in deconstructing hegemony when you refuse to perceive it and understand that it isn’t something you can take off like a garment, and you probably won’t ever recognize and uproot all the ways in which it affects you, especially when you are continuing to live within it. 

What hegemony doesn’t want you to know

One of the ways hegemony sustains and perpetuates itself is by reinforcing the idea not so much that other ways of being and knowing are evil (although that’s usually a stage in an ideology becoming hegemonic), but that they’re impossible. That they don’t actually exist. 

See, again, the idea that anyone claiming to live differently is either lying or deluded.

There are few clearer examples of how pervasive Christian hegemony is than Christian atheists being certain every religion works like Christianity. Hegemonic Christianity wants you to think that all cultures work like Christianity because it wants their belief systems to be modular so you can just …swap them. And it wants to pretend that culture/worldview is a free market where it can just outcompete other cultures.

But that’s… not how anything works. 

And the truth of the matter is that white nationalist Christians shoot at synagogues and Sikh temples and mosques because those other ways of being can’t be allowed to exist. 

They don’t shoot at atheist conventions because there’s room in hegemonic Christianity for Christian atheists precisely because Christian atheists are still culturally Christian. Their atheism is Christian-shaped.

They may not like you. They’re definitely going to try to convert you. They may not want you to be able to hold public office or teach their kids.

But the only challenge you’re providing is that of The Existence of Disbelief. And that’s fine. That makes you a really safe Other to have around. You can See The Light and not have to change much.

What you’re not doing is providing an example of a whole other way of being and knowing that (often) predates Christianity and is completely separate from it and has managed to survive it and continue to live and thrive (there’s a reason Christians like to speak of Jews and Judaism in the past tense, and it’s similar to the reason white people like to speak of indigenous peoples of the Americas in the past tense). 

That’s not a criticism–it’s fine to just… be post-Christian. There’s not actually anything wrong with being culturally Christian. The problems come in when you start denying that it’s a thing, or insisting that you, unique among humankind, are above Having A Culture.

But it does mean that you don’t pose the same sort of threat to Christianity that other cultures do, and hence, less violence. 

[catasters]

[skybluethunderhead-deactivated2]

@anarchypete Is this your house?

[anarchypete]

Might say the reverse situation, because it certainly isn’t a problem!

[asterwild]

PENGUINS. all of them!

(not precisely to scale, but close)