#anonymaus

yk, I always thought it was a shame that we (here on the Overanalyzing Dumb Pop Media website) consider HP a forbidden topic; or rather, have collectively decided that, because its author is an idiot transphobe, it is unworthy of discussion. There are so many things worthy of discussion about it, about what it believes in, what roles it assigns to people, why it ultimately fails in delivering its message.

Actually, the houses are a big part of that.

What is evil in the world of HP? Not what the text says outright, not the lip-service it pays to Fascism Bad! No, what is shown as evil? What marks an evil person, and in contrast, a good one? (Aside from superficial and again, obvious traits like cruelty or intolerance)

The defining trait of the "evil" house is ambition and cunning - and intelligence. Ravenclaw might not be "the villain", but the characters placed here, when they feature at all, are often morally ambiguous or downright antagonistic. The big bad villain comes from devastating poverty, just like the secondary villain.

What does HP believe in? Well, underlying seems to be the assumption that it is inherently suspicious to want to rise above one's station. It is fine for characters to explore and make use of their natural gifts, but it is wrong and a mark of evil to have ambitions beyond that. Wanting to be better is fueled by bitterness and jealousy; in HP, you either have innate talent, or you're a fraud and a villain.

This isn't something that's put in consciously, I am almost certain of that. Rather, it stems from a cultural background, where everyone ought to stay within their class. Where good fortune, wealth and talent is a mark of God's favour, and trying to achieve better status despite not being born into it, is hubris that ought to be punished.

Now, on the surface, HP obviously rejects this. Harry himself grows up a destitute, abused orphan! Doesn't he?

But he is lifted from his old life when he learns that he was always special. Fate has marked him favourably. He is innately talented in all the right ways, and he's heir to a fortune.

Contrasting that, there's Ron, whose family is actually poor, but who bear poverty gracefully. Who would, of course, never accept charity! And who's father could have had a better, more lucrative carreer, but never had because he enjoys working in his deadend position so much! (And then look at Ron's brothers: The twins find success and a fortune by exploring their innate talents, seemingly without too much care for financial gain. Percy, otoh, who actually has career ambitions, is painted as shallow and selfish for it.)

Even of the protagonists, the one who is the most hardworking - Hermione - is also the most ruthless, even cruel and dangerous at times. And she is allowed to work for success only because all her motivation is purely academic (and also rooted in poor self-esteem). She studies for a love of studying, and because she is terrified of failure. Not because she wants to be the best.

Being the best is something you simply are. Not something you work for.

On the surface level, HP is about defeating fascism. But the whole framework of HP, its underlying worldview, is far more compatible to that of fascism than antifascim. Voldemort kind of has a point! In HP, muggles are constantly portrayed as clueless and idiotic not-people who are needlessly cruel and intolerant towards wizards. Voldemort's offense isn't thinking wizards are inherently better - the narrative believes this too - it's that he's going to far. He's targeting other wizards and that's inacceptable.

Because in the world of HP, the traits and talents you're born with determine your worth as a person. They're the mark of goodness and achieving success beyond your "station", that's evil.

In the world of HP, not everyone is born free and equal. From birth, it is determined whether you're good or evil, and that's unchangeable (which is why there's so little character development in the entire book series). Redemption is impossible. At 11 years old, your character is declared in front of everyone, and this is unchangeable.

Und so hebe dich denn aus den Nebeln des Grams auf des Selbstvertrauens mächtigen Fittichen aufwärts, bis du dir selber mit all deinem Leide klein wirst, groß wirst über dir selber und all deinem Leide.

Why don't we all do a silly little craft together? Not you, anon. You need to go sit in the quiet corner until you have calmed down.

This is called paste paper technique. I like it because it is very fun and very simple to do. Even with limited artistic skill, you'll be able to achieve pretty and interesting results.

What we need:

Wallpaper paste. Make it really thick. You'll want a jelly, not a fluid.

Paint. Any water-soluble paint will do. I prefer gouache, but acrylics or watercolour are fine too.

Big brushes. Don't use the nice ones.

A palette of some kind.

Paper. You'll want to use something thick with a grainy surface.

Utensils for making shapes in the paint (I'll explain later)

Water, kitchen towels, etc

Apron

Apply a layer of wallpaper paste to your sheet. Then decide what colour(s) you want your background/bottom layer to be. Mix up your paint(s), then mix the paint with wallpaper paste, too. Apply with generous strokes; make sure you go over the edges so your paper is completely covered. Make it as even or uneven as you like. Don't worry about getting it perfect, in fact, you should absolutely get messy with this.

You can also apply the paint directly to the paper...

... or experiment with different tools. Here, for example, I used a piece of cardboard instead of a brush. You can see that the texture is a bit different.

Once you're done with your sheet, carefully take it off the table and put it on a flat surface to dry. Clean off your work surface and repeat until you have enough. Let your sheets dry completely.

Now we're ready for decorating!

There's a lot of different techniques you can do. This is one of my favourites because it looks super cool and is really, really easy.

Cover your sheet in another layer of wallpaper paste. Then mix your paints like we did before and paint on top.

No it's fine to ask, of course! Willowbark is not irrelevant or inaccurate per se. It contains salicin, which gets processed into salicylic acid in the liver, the active ingredient in aspirin. It does have an analgetic and antiinflammatory effect. However, dosage control is difficult, as with all teas, and it's not a miracle cure. It may help bring down a fever or deal with a headache, but it won't clear out an infection, and it won't save the Character from sepsis.

This is: TRUE

the post

Well, I am of the opinion that there is no meaningful distinction between spirituality and religiosity. What is religion if not a tendency towards supernatural and magical thinking? There's a pervasive narrative that only big organized religion is "true" religion and everything else is - well, not that; something lesser, or something more primal and true, depending on whether you make that assumption with disdain or a sort of benevolent condescension.

But that's a misconception. Religions are entrenched into their societies, they are everything, from stories for children, over daily rituals for protection or affirmation, to grandiose ceremonies. People everywhere always believed in their religions, just as much as religious people do today, and all religions are complex and nuanced.

Whether something is "real" or "just" superstition and storytelling is a matter of perspective. And this is why I don't think it's helpful or even possible to divide belief systems into "religion" and "spirituality".

Now, to be fair, the op I was referring to apparently was replying to takes along the line of "Without religion, how can you have morality?" Which is of course nonsense based on the same faulty assumption I'm criticizing. Unfortunately, instead of attacking this obvious weak point, OP just uncritically copied that which lead them to the incredible statement that "Homo erectus might have been atheist". Which is honestly in the top 10 dumbest things I have ever seen anyone say on the internet.

Also not a fan of the implications of you painting spirituality as a womanly thing :/

1. How's the general mood, afterwards? Like, "finally, about damn time they got their shit together", "well, we have a government, but At What Cost" or something more optimistic?

2. How likely is it that the people who didn't vote for him the first time but did the second were trying to make a point/make him sweat?

3. Is there now a vague timer in the back of people's minds counting down to everything going tits up sooner rather than later?

Like, a couple of years ago we had a similar issue with our government here in the UK that was an absolute drawn out debacle, and while I know very little about German politics other than AfD = bad, I'm curious if it's playing out in a similar way, where the politicians are all "we promise to provide a stable government and everything, pinky swear", while in the background they've got their own version of the ides of March going on and the rats are rapidly abandoning the sinking ship.

Hi @gaiahenshin, wonderful to meet you again :) I do feel inclined to answer, but I'm not that deep in the politics game, so take everything I say with a grain of salt <3

1: Pretty much everyone is in agreement that this was humiliating for Merz. The more conservative media outlets seem to have taken the stance that our democracy functioned as intended and nothing really happened, which is true to an extend and also the most positive spin you can put on this debacle. However. It needs to be stressed that this has never happened before on a federal level. Electing the party leader and candidate for chancellor of course can come with all sorts of intra-party squabbles, but once that's done, the party usually unites behind the figurehead. This evidently did not happen here. There's really no way to interpret this other than Merz not having the full support of his party - and the new term has just started! If he doesn't have his guys under control now, how do you think this is gonna look 3 years from now?

Nobody really likes Friedrich Merz. He was no one's first choice, this was the third time he tried to get the party lead and chancellor candidacy, and it only worked because there was literally nobody else. He's a provocateur and a bigot, which served him well as leader of the opposition but also means that if you're in Germany, and you're anything but a white, cishet, well-off, western man over 50, he has probably said or done something to offend you, personally.

He also has absolutely 0 experience in government. He has never been a minister on the state or federal level, he has never even been mayor somewhere. He spent the better part of the last 20 years making millions at Blackrock, and his ministries are staffed by more (former) CEOs and lobbyists than I personally am comfortable with. Some people who already did spectacularly shit jobs in government are back in the front row. All this has probably lead to some resentment in his own faction.

Plus he needed to go make nice with the Left (that's our leftwing party, literally called The Left) and the Greens so he could get a second vote in early. That must have stung and I am sure there are some people in the Union (that's his party) who did not like seeing that at all.

It's not apocalyptic by any means, and I personally enjoy Merz getting public slaps to the face, but I do think it's indicative of him being not nearly as secure in his position as I would like a chancellor to be.

2: Very likely, I would think. Of course the elections are anonymous, so there's really no way to know who voted against him, and why. Everyone from the Social Democrats (coalition partner to Merz) who was asked said they they didn't think it was any of them. Merz, otoh, said he didn't want to look into who the defectors are. Which is smart if they were mainly from his own party, making that public (or people coming forward!) would make him look even weaker. So. Make of that what you will.

(Also, there are a few people from the opposition who have stated they did vote for him, most prominently my guy Bodo Ramelow (Left, lmao), so it's likely that he was still missing more than 3 votes the second round)

3: Hm. I don't think so, no. Nobody likes instability, except for the far right idiots, and they have bigger problems to worry about right now. This new government will do its best to make life harder for a lot of people (our new minister of the interior has already instructed border police to reject asylum seekers. This is illegal, but of course Alex Ausländermaut Dobrindt doesn't care). This is really gonna suck and do further damage to the world, but adding petty infighting will help no one. And most people in both parties are aware of that. Most of them are actually seasoned, pragmatic and reasonable politicians who know what it means to have responsibility in government. I can't believe there's wide-spread interest in destabilization.

But then again, in these batshit times, who knows! We'll have to wait and see.