She Said Clud

Liberal, Feminist, Reader, Writer, Nerd...This blog is mostly random dump space for my current and wildly shifting obsessions so follow me at your own risk.

[teathattast]

[depsidase]

[depsidase]

[depsidase]

[jv]

This may be the worst use of LLMs anyone has attempted, ever. Up there with recognizing mushrooms.

[ashenmind]

[stickandthorn]

I’d die on the hill that “stranger danger” is a deeply unhelpful mentality to have. “Ooooh everyone is out to get me they’re all gonna perpetrate harm that’s actually more likely to come from someone I already know. I better never talk to anyone in my community who I don’t already know, just to be safe. I’m sure there are no other biases interwoven with this mentality” like oh my god human traffickers do not just randomly spawn in every parking lot. You don’t have to go solo hitchhiking across the country but you also don’t have to live in fear that every guy on the street is the knife man who’s gonna get you. Like have situational awareness, yeah. But most of the time the guy on the street is not knife man he’s actually just a guy on the street and he’s probably pretty chill, and you’re driving yourself crazy by living in a constant state of unnecessary fear.

[stickandthorn]

Like always safety comes first, especially if you’re in a marginalized group more likely to be targeted by random people around you. But that’s different from stranger danger. I might even say that stranger danger is something that contributes to marginalized groups getting targeted by random people. Which strangers do you find distrust worthy? Why? Does vague distrust justify harmful actions in the name of self defense? Stranger danger draws everyone away from more important issues of safety (underlying bigotries, systemic injustices, abuse in the home, etc) and towards an amorphous boogeyman that has no solution, because it’s not the real cause or culprit.

[shesaidclud]

I wonder if some of the issue is just people not being taught how to graduate from ideas that were taught to you as a child. A child treating all adults as dangerous strangers? Wise move! There's a reason they teach it to children who are not able to easily defend themselves or differentiate safe and dangerous situations. But when you get older and understand nuance your mentality should also adapt and change. Some people do LEARN as adults that strangers can't be trusted, especially women and minorities who have experienced very dangerous situations. However, even then, if you go in searching for danger as an adult you'll probably find some. And that's a lot of stress. If you go in assuming everyone is fine and minding their business you'll probably have a much better time than majority of the time.

[depsidase]

[depsidase]

[depsidase]

[depsidase]

[maxknightley]

the thing about chekhov's gun is that the gun does not literally "need to go off by the third act." the story works just as well if someone merely grabs the gun and starts threatening people with it, or if the Jewish protagonist recognizes the particular model as a Politically Concerning piece of world war 2 surplus, or if the gun's owner waxes nostalgic about the last time he fired it, etc. etc. etc.

unfortunately I get the impression that a lot of people do not understand that and therefore build theories around the idea that if the gun is not Specifically taken down from the wall and fired, it serves no purpose to the story, so why the hell was it there in the first place

[longseasons]

[gwydionmisha]

Bonus: If I buy a book I get to keep it! The publisher can't turn up at my house at random and confiscate all the books I bought.

[fforsythiaaa]

Once when I was in undergrad, someone described something as “problematic” in class and our professor was like, “That’s cool, but ‘problematic’ doesn’t really mean anything. It means that the thing you’re describing has a problem, and in and of itself that’s not bad. Art, especially, should always have problems, or else it’s not interesting and not art, either. It sounds like you’re trying to say that this is bad, but you don’t want to say ‘bad.’ Is that right?”

So from then on whenever one of us called something problematic, he would make us talk it out until we could name the “bad” thing we were hinting at. In this particular class, 7/10 it was some type of oppression, and the remainder was like, “I’m uncomfortable because this is very new/confusing/pushing boundaries that made me feel safe.”

Once we stopped calling things “problematic” and stopping at that, class got way more interesting and... we all had to say, like, “that’s racist” or “that’s misogynistic” or “ew capitalism gross” out loud, which a lot of us had never done in a classroom before. Or we had to be like, “Uhhh... I’m not sure what’s so bad?” and confront our own beliefs and that was maybe even more useful.

Anyway. Whenever I see the word problematic, I can’t help but think of this professor being like, “Good starting point, now let’s get specific.” I think when we have to commit to saying “that’s ___” it requires a lot more careful thought about the truth and impact and complexities of whatever we’re claiming. Sometimes there really is some bullshit afoot, and also sometimes it’s art, and it should be full of problems, because that’s what art is.

[hypokeimena]

#'this is present in the text' is often a good first step #but those second and third ones (naming it; describing its function) are vital (via @elucubrare)

[theconcealedweapon]

[depsidase]

[angry-eevee]

when people defend the “Cis white guy is default” thing like “He’s meant to be an everyman we can all relate to and project on!” kindly remind them the largest ethnic group in the WORLD is Han Chinese and the highest gender percentage fluctuates so if you want an ACTUAL  “default” you want a 40 year old chinese person whose gender changes from year to year.  

[galren]

#give us the middle-aged gender fluid Chinese protagonist that we can all relate to and project on (via @mr-and-mr-pavus)

[computationalcalculator]

[skaldish]

I don’t think people realize just how many USChristian attitudes get passed around in Heathenry, so I compiled different statements and behaviors I’ve seen over the years that reflect Christian notions not original to Heathenry. These examples are illustrative rather than definitive, since I’m only somewhat familiar with different Christian frameworks, but it should be enough to give you the picture:

General Christianity

“The first and most important thing you need to do to practice Heathenry is read the Eddas.”

“You must worship Odin even if you don’t want to, because he’s the head god.”

“The point of being Heathen is to live life in a way that grants you entry to Valhalla.”

“Valhalla is the good/awesome afterlife and Helheim is the bad/boring afterlife.”

“The Æsir are good and the jötnar are evil.”

“Odin is like God, Loki is like the Devil, and Baldr is like Jesus.”

“Odin is more powerful than the rest of the gods.”

“Ragnarok is the End Times.”

(“Us vs. them” attitudes.)

(Not knowing what to do with the the goddesses in general, regardless of one’s gender.)

Catholic-Specific

“To be Heathen, you must serve the gods.”

“We can’t truly know the gods, only attempt to understand them through the Eddas.”

“The gods are distant and don’t care about our personal needs or lives.”

“We must act as the gods’ ambassadors on Earth.”

“Making sacrifices should be painful. That’s why it’s called a sacrifice.”

“Ragnarök is the End Times and there’s nothing we can do about it.”

(Treating the Hávamál as scripture.)

(Using medieval Icelandic law-tracts as a stand-in for Heathen religious orthodoxy.)

(Observing strict worship and insisting others do the same.)

(Adopting a very feudalistic relationship with the gods; lord/servant dynamics.)

Protestant-Specific

“Showing devotion to the gods is done by acting as their hands and feet on earth.”

“You must think about the gods all the time and involve them in everything you do.”

“Why should we merely ‘work with’ the gods when we can worship them?”

“Ragnarök is the End Times and we must prepare to fight on the side of the gods.” OR...

“Ragnarök is the End Times and we must help fulfill it.”

(Behaving as marginalized on the basis of their faith.)

(Reacting badly when confronted with new information about Heathenry.)

(Making bold or even standoffish declarations of faith.)

If you come from a Christian background and hear someone make statements like this, you’re probably going to feel pressured to come up with a counterargument for why it’s okay for you to disagree. What you actually need to do is dismiss the premise entirely. These arguments aren’t reflective of Heathen truths and you don’t have to argue with them as though they are.

This is also not a dig at those who’ve made these statements / done these behaviors before. It’s not exactly second-nature for us to break out of the habit of believing in a specific idea or behaving in a specific way when we believed / behaved that way for most of our lives. However, it’s still worth understanding how specific to Christianity these things are and trying to move away from them.

It’s up to you if you want to point out the nature of these arguments to the people making them. But if you do, I recommend doing so tactfully, with a clear head, and with a very clear understanding about what makes the premise Christian in nature.

Let me know if you want clarification on any of these points and why they aren’t reflective of Heathenry. I’m happy to go into it.