Untitled

Like, even though we weren’t talking about emoticons, we were still discussing basic shared features between facial expressions.

First, here is the image itself she was drawing for me:

https://www.deviantart.com/dmxrated/art/Lucky-Star-Day-of-the-Beehive-654697256

You should already tell that up there is the game’s planned main antagonist.

In contrast, notice the blonde girl and the boy in the middle.  Even though their expressions are a far cry from his, I was still aiming for the basic shared features of their downward eyebrows and their exposed teeth.

With Mondo, I was actually aiming for something more like Ulf, one of the protagonists from Grandia III, with his brows more prominently downward while conveying pride:

While Maria’s pose as a whole was inspired from Arisa from Puella Magi Suzune Magica:

Which in turn, actually conveys something different from the same character’s pose on the volume 1 cover:

someone telling you no or that you’ve hurt them is a gift. it is a very brave thing to say, and it helps you know what you need to do to fix things or prevent future harm.

even if you can’t stop having a breakdown, first stating really clearly that you recognize how vulnerable and generous the other person is being, thanking them for telling you, asking what they need right now.

if you can delay the breakdown long enough, you can have it with a friend or a journal or a therapist.

i think people get into this cycle where all of their tough conversations turn out badly and then it’s much easier to panic when the next tough conversation starts.

but when you break that cycle, you’ll find out that (while they’re still tough) these conversations can actually make your relationships feel stronger at the end. they can make you feel more confident that you know what to do. they can build trust.

What’s important here is: the person who was brave enough to be upfront about this? Should not be the person helping you through the breakdown.

https://wiki.puella-magi.net/End_Cards

Firstly, while atheists and secularists often contrast secular humanist morality (which is centrally concerned with human wellbeing/flourishing and harm reduction) with religious morality (which they describe in terms of something like divine command theory), evangelicals are, at least ostensibly, concerned with human wellbeing/flourishing as well.

Since they understand God to be loving, they usually won’t just say, “God said it so that settles it,” but rather that God “wants what’s best for us” and that the Bible is “God’s instruction book for a good/happy life” (barf).

But the thing is…wellbeing and harm are objective things that can be measured. And, well,

“If same-sex relationships are really sinful, then why do they so often produce good fruit—loving families, open homes, self-sacrifice, commitment, faithfulness, joy? And if conservative Christians are really right in their response to same-sex relationships, then why does that response often produce bad fruit—secrets, shame, depression, loneliness, broken families, and fear?” —Rachel Held Evans, “God and the Gay Christian Discussion, Week 1” (The Rachel Held Evans Blog)

“[T]he idea that [gay relationships] ‘could never bring about happiness’ simply flies in the face of overwhelming evidence. I know that [the evangelicals] would say that, even though the growing number of out-and-proud same-sex couples in this country seem happy, deep down they’re really not. [The evangelicals] would say it, but fewer and fewer Americans would believe it, and rightly so. It’s not just because they defer to individuals as the experts on their own happiness. (People can delude themselves, after all.) It’s because they see the positive fruits such relationships bear.” —John Corvino, “Against Obsessive Celibacy: Debating Social Constructions and Sexual Orientation” (Commonweal)

Gay relationships can bear good fruit and they aren’t inherently harmful in any way, and there’s no good reason to think that there’s anything wrong with gay people or their orientation. That statement isn’t an emotional wish or ideological assertion—it’s an empirical statement of fact that’s based on observation. Evangelicals are just factually, objectively wrong on this issue.

But they can’t just admit that they’re wrong, change their minds about the issue, and become more liberal christians or whatever. Why? Well, because they’ve built up a narrative over the years which says that their version of christianity is the only “true” one and that any christian who doesn’t agree with them on absolutely every little thing is a “fake” christian who’d might as well be an atheist. To the evangelicals, it’s black and white, all or nothing.

They can’t become those wishy-washy liberal (read: not dogmatic fundamentalist) christians who they’ve spent so many years trashing.

And they obviously aren’t going to become atheists, which in their mind is the only other option.

There is a kind of logic to it. If you describe God as both all-loving (that is: perfectly concerned with our wellbeing/happiness) AND morally opposed to gay relationships, but then you acknowledge that gay relationships are good for people and not harmful, then you have to face the fact that that God either 1.) doesn’t exist or 2.) does exist but is cruel—and is, either way, undeserving of worship.

Put plainly, if evangelicals entertain the thought that they might be wrong about this one issue, they’ll have to question everything that they believe in. And they don’t want to do that.

The second reason why evangelicals are so unwilling to acknowledge the evidence and change their minds on the issue is that if they did, they’d have to acknowledge that they’ve been cruel, oppressive, and often violent toward gay people for no good reason.

They’d have to sit and think about all the pain, torture, discrimination, loneliness, misery and death that they and their ideology have put gay people through…and realize that it was all for nothing. That there was no end to justify those means. That it was just random, senseless cruelty that they inflicted on others.

They wouldn’t be able to say, “I know I seem mean, but I have nothing against you. It’s just that God says…” They wouldn’t be able to say, “I know this is hard, but it’s for your spiritual wellbeing in the long-run!”

Next up in mangas.

Oh, that was explicitly explained. She first took care of the twins, but quit the job and moved out because Suzune came in her care. To the father, she talks about special needs to explain why she won’t move Suzune into their house like invited, so she probably already was a magical girl at the time.

dmxrated said: But then again, it was never specified (unless I forgot something) how Suzune found out about Tsubaki’s role as a Puella Magi. Was that by accident, or did Tsubaki herself tell her?

Like often I see these complaints about a universal basic income that are like “well then no one would work!” and I think there are lots of people motivated to have more money even when they have enough to get by, but I also I think, that’s kind of true, if regular employment looked and functioned the way it does now.

But with UBI if both employers and society wanted people in certain jobs those jobs would have to offer more than just “you need us to survive”. They’d have to offer satisfaction and community and purpose.

Imagine the changes places like WalMart and McDonalds would have to make to how they run their enterprise if they had to woo and entice their employees into wanting to be there. Imagine the end of “the customer is always right”, both because employers know their workers won’t put up with and because consumers are forced to have a respect for workers choosing to do this with their time to make the community function when they don’t have to.

Imagine the progress to automation and technology now that we don’t have to worry about unemployment as a result. So instead of a store having 40 employees, they have 10 and automated self check out and price scanners and store apps you can pay on, and automated self-driving bots to keep inventory and restock at night. (And that’s when you don’t just order online, shopping in-store is now inherently a Boutique experience).

But those ten remaining employees are So Valued by the company, and so carefully educated and trained and respected as experts in what they do. People go “you could do that when you grow up, help people shop and find what they need and know what products are best for them.” And it wouldn’t be an insult like “you’ll wind up flipping burgers”, but instead a respected option “you can help people have warm fresh food in one of the oldest and most prestigious international groups in the world, and look at their travel programs and free clubs and classes” (McDonalds wins the Fast Food Mario Kart Tournament every year, their team is best in the nation and if you want a good esports program you work at McDonalds).

Evidence shows people would still work. Evidence shows people want to improve their situations and want to have structure in their lives. Evidence shows the only populations who take advantage of a UBI to not work are students who choose to focus more on their studies and new mothers, who choose to spend more time with their kids.

But it would increase the bargaining power and social power of the average employee by so much. They’d have the option to walk away. And employers would know it and consumers would know it and employees would know it. So if we wanted it to keep working, employers would have to start catering to their employees wellbeing and health and happiness as well as their wallet.

These children often do not want to be there but will be punished if they say otherwise.

My mother was a stay at home mom who regular pioneered and she took me out in service (going door to door) almost every day from the time I was 3 until I was 10, in both rural and urban territory. I was also taken in service every Saturday from the time I was 11-15.

During those years, some things I remember are:

People came to the door with guns a lot, several times they loaded them and removed the safety (I later learned what they had been doing) while telling us to leave. 

When I was 5, someone sicced their rottweiler on us. I had an irrational fear of rottweilers until I was about 15 and met a friendly one.

People came to the door with knives.

Lots of angry screaming.

While doing walking territory with a Guatemalan 8 yr old girl, a man came to the door in full KKK attire (hood, robes with the blood cross symbol, etc) and a gun and invited us in. I grabbed her and ran back to car and locked us inside. I was later yelled for not finishing the street by the man in charge of the car group.

A man set the magazines they were handed on fire and dropped them in front of us. We almost got burned really bad.

Some people followed us down a street throwing rocks.

A woman poured scalding hot coffee over my head.

Several incidents of racial slurs being screamed.

A woman kicked me off her porch when I was 6.

The person I was with was slapped across the face with a large wooden rosary.

Ex JW’s feel free to add any stories of people at the door being shitty.

And we were always told that opposition proved that they were right. And we were encouraged to suck it up and keep going, because “Jehovah was behind us.” And no matter what was done to me, I was always expected to be in service again the next day, or weekend. And I was told to not talk about it, especially to worldly adults.

I know that Jehovah’s Witnesses are annoying, and I know that they keep coming back, and I know that they’re sexist and homophobic and transphobic, but please don’t traumatize children for it. It isn’t their fault they were born into this religion.

If you really care about what JW children go through, read about the Candace Conti case. Learn about how the Australian High Court is investigating the Governing Body for covering up child sexual abuse. Learn about the disfellowshipping policies and how they’re tightening. Learn about the rampant sexism. Read the Young People Ask chapter about love and sex and homosexuality and how it’s hurt young people.

Follow the hashtag #worstconventionever and see how the already tight shunning policies are tightening.