also while we’re here i’m still entirely insulted by dean getting a dog called ‘miracle’ that was effectively a replacement for cas, like he was entitled to one (1) miracle after saving the goddamn universe and restoring his own free will for the first time in his entire life, and he doesn’t get cas, he gets a fucking DOG like no… no thank you…
cas who has canonically been labeled “the dog who thinks he’s people” and “cas is like a talking dog” and “attack dog” and “purse dog” and more than I can even count, but in the end dean is not allowed to return his love confession and is given instead a dog they had the audacity to name “miracle” because after years of dean being canonically terrified of dogs, having a lot of weird trauma surrounding dogs, and being told point-blank that he does not like dogs… and after years of showing us that it was Sam who always wanted a dog, whose stories about what he did when he “ran away rom the life” frequently surrounded dogs and him living happily with dogs going back to his childhood and one of his own heaven memories… they literally chose to effectively swap out castiel, the confessed love of dean’s life… for a damn dog…
I don’t find it cute, or sweet, or “the one bright spot in 15.20.” I’m repulsed by it all.
(I mean, I love the doggo, she’s a good girl and deserves love and pets, but I can’t find it cute or sweet or want the dog anywhere near anything having to do with this either…)
I mean it’s another piece of subtext in the episode that just feels weird, like it’s supposedto make you go WTF?!?!
Because it’s not even like Dean gets to enjoy life with Miracle, because he’s dead in a hot minute.
And that feels, yet again, as if the episode’s subtext is making a snarky comment about the episode’s supra-text.
(Note: this is out of genuine curiosity because I’ve always been drawn to ancient Greek gods but told that they’re just folk tales representative of an ancient culture’s values/ways to explain what they didn’t know, and nothing more)
How do you worship gods who were created by a small group of people long gone, or who are the gods of something that we now have an exact scientific explanation for (e.g. the changing of the seasons, or the sun going across the sky)? My brain is trying to resolve the urge to worship vs the analytical, ‘the world doesn’t work like that,’ ‘all gods are Fake News,’ ‘blah blah blah,’ part of my brain (I was raised atheist).
The whole Science vs. Religion is very much a Christian thing, not an all-religions thing. Uncovering the mysteries of how the world works is, for many people throughout history, part and parcel of worshiping the divine. There are probably a great many breakdowns on that by much better-placed religious scientists than you can find in the comparatively wee polytheist community, so I’d actually look at how other mainstream religions answer that question first, to give you a different baseline.
But on the whole, it’s just not something we’re terribly bothered by? There’s something at stake if you tell a Christian of a certain sort that what they believe is historically, factually wrong. We don’t generally have anything at stake. Our myths don’t work like that. LOTS of people’s myths don’t work like that. It’s the frustrating middle of a Venn Diagram of “GOTCHA: Your myths are fake because science!” and “GOTCHA: Your religion is backwards because it doesn’t function just like Christianity!” Which is, incidentally, the same central sliver that classical academia has only crawled out of in the last 50 years.
So this isn’t something I honestly give any thought to at all, outside of looking at the history of academia. It has zero theological significance for me.
If pressed to invent some, or account for the anthropological origin of a tradition, my answer has always just been “People Feel Thing.” People Feel Thing, so they give it a name and see what happens. People Feel Thing, so they interact and see what happens. People Feel Thing, so they fiddle with structures until They Feel Thing that seems like they’ve got it right. Humans like structures. Some humans Feel More Thing and some Feel Less Thing. And inevitably, humans are a mess and get many things wrong.
The reason that simplistic answer works for me is that it’s both what I’ve experienced and seen in other polytheist friends. Being a kid, Feeling A Thing. Not having any word for it until you grow up and discover, oh, other people Feel That Thing too. And as an adult it’s the same way you hone a practice: well, that Felt Wrong so we’re not gonna do that again. Let’s try this instead. Listen, I’m not saying it’s nymphs, but that river has a Feel about it, and I’ll throw a flower in when I pass, and that’s that. That offering would be better than this other one, but I couldn’t say why. This holiday is significant even though it’s meaning is lost, and that half-remembered one doesn’t speak to me at all.
Upon realizing they’re a polytheist, how does anyone choosea tradition? I always Felt something about Latin and passed it off as my linguistic zeal while I was off studying other polytheisms and trying them on like precious, irreplacable hats, unique in all the world. Only to discover I look, and Feel, awful in hats. There was no moment where I sat down and analyzed which paths would suit me; I Felt A Thing, and by the gods, it would not go the hell away.
So there’s always a measure of trusting your own perception, or at least deciding to follow where it leads even if you have questions or complaints.That doesn’t mean rejecting science; it also doesn’t mean interrogating your every feeling against all scientific evidence. It’s actually kind of the same spirit of inquiry that drives science to begin with, at least for those polytheists building traditions or mucking around in the academic/archaeological mud.
In the end, is Jupiter the vague placeholder for why the sky makes that Shiny Boom Attack, or is he manifest in the experience of thunder and lightning, the force and power, the way you still jump and turn your head even knowing exactly what it was, and why, and all the science behind it? Did people ever confuse the two? Sure! Does that mean modern polytheists have to believe exactly what a peasant in 250 BCE believed without the intervening millennia of growth and change? Nahhh.
A question to fellow Roman polytheists, not at all influenced by currently being quite happily snowed-in.
Which deity do you associate with snow?
Looking primarily for UPG reflections, I guess. There’s Jupiter for all manner of storms, of course, but I tend to associate him only with the proper thunder and lightning sort. The rest I put to the Tempestates, whom I consider something like storm nymphs, and the clear-skied winds to the Aurae. But snow is……different.
I associate snow with Proserpina. Even though she’s a spring diety, her absence is what brings the winter winds and therefore snow. It’s difficult to really dig into what Roman diety could be associated with snow since there’s not really any in true Roman tradition. Historically it’s not unlikely they might have attributed the Greek Kione with their snow, but if they did there’s no written record I know of.
This is what’s extra wild to me, because surely after gaining a lot of northernly provinces, they encountered enough snow to have some sort of association. We have stuff about soldiers complaining about snow! Where is the graffiti telling off the gods for it! Curse tablets condemning people to freeze their feet off and have their roofs give under the snow!
A question to fellow Roman polytheists, not at all influenced by currently being quite happily snowed-in.
Which deity do you associate with snow?
Looking primarily for UPG reflections, I guess. There’s Jupiter for all manner of storms, of course, but I tend to associate him only with the proper thunder and lightning sort. The rest I put to the Tempestates, whom I consider something like storm nymphs, and the clear-skied winds to the Aurae. But snow is……different.
My first thought was Ceres, but I think that’s just bc I’ve seen some pictures recently of snowy farmland that made me think of her ? But it’s more of a seasonal thing instead of a specifically snow thing ?
Also not strictly Roman but sirona ? The silence after heavy snowfall, especially at night ?? Makes me think of her for some reason.
And in a more aesthetic sense, vesta, bc winter is Hearth Season™️ and there isn’t a more perfect winter picture than when there’s fresh snow on the ground (esp when that view is through a kitchen window)
Vesta was possibly the month god for December, so #SameFeel there. But like you said, she’s more the view from inside the kitchen window, rather than the world outside.
I REALLY like Sirona for it, especially as an incidental foil to Apollo-who-won’t-stop-blinding-me-on-my-morning-commute. And of course, the sun shining offthe snow is even worse….Something in the lethargy but endurance of her cold-blooded snakes, as well. This is excellent to ponder and work with, thank you!
A question to fellow Roman polytheists, not at all influenced by currently being quite happily snowed-in.
Which deity do you associate with snow?
Looking primarily for UPG reflections, I guess. There’s Jupiter for all manner of storms, of course, but I tend to associate him only with the proper thunder and lightning sort. The rest I put to the Tempestates, whom I consider something like storm nymphs, and the clear-skied winds to the Aurae. But snow is……different.
Should You Adapt Spells or Use Spells Word-For-Word?
Should You Adapt Spells or Use Spells Word-For-Word? Do you adapt or use spells as spells by This Crooked Crown
So you found a spell you like, but it’s not perfect. Maybe it uses an ingredient that’s rare or expensive in your neck of the woods. Maybe it asks you to go out and stand in the moonlight and there’s been nothing but snow and rain for weeks. Or, maybe, it’s just not fully clicking for you.
There’s lots of reasons why a person might adapt a spell or ritual. It’s usually for ingredient based…
Rhode Island, where I live, was hit wit a blizzard a week or so back. It dumped more than a foot of snow on us and everyone had a Saturday off but that was that. Except for having to dig ourselves out that Sunday.
I actually like shoveling snow. It gives me a chance to just put music on and do something mindless with my body. It’s good exercise. It’s a form of meditation. It’s also good…
So, genuine question here, why does it seem so rare to find magic that utilizes live plants and animals these days? I’m honestly curious and would love to hear your thoughts on the matter!
Is it due to a lack of convenience? A lack of predictability? A fear of offending spirits? Risk vs reward calculations? Something else altogether?
I admit that using live plants and animals in magic is not always the answer but they do seem to have their time and place! Just like bones and dried plants do. Different things for different times and all that.
For example: there’s a particular plant I tie a spell to every year and therefore need to take care of it so it continues to thrive. It’s a mutually beneficial relationship though and we each get something out of it. Yes, there’s a risk that the plant might die but the rewards have outweighed the risk for me.
There are also heaps of folklore around blessing or hexing cows (and by extension the prosperity of the family), especially in the valley near me. I’m sure other areas are the same and yet I only ever hear about it locally and rarely online.
Even creatures as small as spiders can be utilized without killing them so why do I so rarely see anyone talking about it?
Is it happening and I just don’t notice? Is it no longer convenient? Do people not find it effective? Let’s chat!
hereditary witchcraft has become a huge topic of discussion on this site - what’s so interesting about tumblr to me is to see hot-blooded arguments raging on questions i never considered needed fighting. While I understand that that term is used falsely by many who are trying to make themselves seem a little more important than the rest of us, it’s wrapped all the way back around now, where it’s assumed that ANYONE using that term is lying! Fascinating!
I am not one myself, and I am not from the Appalachian area i’m a little too far north, but consider that they are most likely telling you the truth. Appalachian communities are incredibly close-knit and clannish, and most people there benefit from deep family ties and folk remedies and oral history being passed through those lines. They have a generations old distrust of outsiders, and for a long time were more likely to rely on folk cures over medical help. While their grandparents may have never called themselves witches (and may have been teaching magic to ward off witches, a common mindset carried over from the Irish and Scots), they certainly taught their children and grandchildren the way, however they might have called it to themselves.
I find this take interesting (as someone who currently lives and whose family is from a Pennsylvanian part of Appalachia) because your reasoning for why some people might claim the title of hereditary witch is exactly why I wouldn’t.
The folk remedies and superstitions taught to me by my family members are explicitly not witchcraft. Like you said, many are even anti-witch. I tie them into my local, folk based craft but I personally feel like calling the lessons from my family “witchcraft” would be an insult to them.
My rosary praying every day, bible reading, God-fearing, Scots-Irish grandmother would beat me black and blue if she caught me calling what she does witchcraft. Folk healing is one thing. Witchcraft is another. Both might be types of magical practice but they’re different at their core. So while there might be overlap from the folk traditions of my family and my workings with the craft, to claim that I came from a family of witches would be a lie. Therefore, I am not a hereditary witch.
At the end of the day, what people decide to call themselves is none of my business. Everyone’s practice is their own and if someone feels the need to lie on the internet to get praise from strangers they have bigger issues going on.
My only point was that when this post came up as I was scrolling I found it interesting how people can look at the same information and come to two vastly different conclusions. It just goes to show that the craft is a highly unique experience for everyone and discussions about it must have the parameters made clear or miscommunication is bound to happen.
Secular witchcraft as “I don’t believe in spirits, only energy”
:/
Okay, I am definitely the first and not the second. But what is wrong with the second? Is this post people saying, “I disagree with that outlook,” or is it people saying, “I believe that outlook is wrong and your craft is lesser if you practice that way?” Because that’s kinda rude.
It’s fine to believe whatever you want, but let’s say you don’t believe in God whilst calling yourself Christian. Using the correct word is important because words mean things. You can’t take away the core and have it remain the same.
Fair enough. So what do we call witches who work with energy?
Several self-descriptors from such practitioners come to mind, such as energy worker, energy healer, light worker. It’s different from witchcraft and is a discipline unto itself. Just as I cannot call myself a lawyer for not having been to law school, the same goes for them and “witch.” Our skillsets are different, and that is something to recognize on either end. I certainly cannot say I am trained or learned as an energy worker.
Ah, so we’re just garden variety gatekeeping witchcraft. Good to know my initial instinct was correct.
I mean if you say so? There’s nothing wrong with a spiritual/magical/energetic practice that isn’t witchcraft. There’s loads to choose from! But it does no favors in naming your cat “dog.”
And that’s for them to decide, not you.
They aren’t gatekeeping though? Nothing about this has been gatekeeping. They aren’t saying energy work isn’t valid. They aren’t saying that certain types of people can’t be witches. In fact, they’ve super polite and supportive about people practicing these other disciplines!
All the OP is pointing out is that witchcraft is historically tied to spirit work. There are multitudes of other forms of magic that go by various names. And those practices are valid! They’re fabulous! And it’s okay if it’s not labeled as witchcraft.
Words have meaning. Using the proper ones are important. At the end of the day, people can call themselves whatever they want. It’s no skin off my back. But it does a disservice to the hard work that goes into the respective practices of witchcraft and energy working. And it also makes it harder for people to find the kind of information they might be looking for.
And crying gatekeeping even at posts that are nothing like that diminish the calls of gatekeeping when it’s actually happening.
Yeah, like you can argue watership down wasn’t meant for little kids, the Brave Little Toaster was for like little little kids and had a lot of death and near death and accepting death and suidical themes. Like WTF Brave Little Toaster
Actually it’s oddly the other way around.
The book Watership Down wasn’t really written for anyone in particular however the stories were created as car trip stories the author told to his little girls. I’ve read a good chunk of the book (got busy and put it down halfway through) it’s not that bad and I would have no issues reading it to someone 7 and up (though if you’re older I think you’ll get more out of it). Yeah there’s some frick-up crap in there (mainly in the form of death and near death) but I’ve always found with books that one’s imagination can downplay some of the more horrifying factors. Not to mention rabbit folk tales are scattered throughout the book as more lighthearted contrast. It’s kind of like how if you think about Roald Dahl stories they’re fricked up but the way he writes them makes them less horrifying.
The movie however, I don’t know who that was made for. Visually seeing some of the frick up stuff on top of frick up visuals they added to up play the fricked-up parts (field of blood anyone) and you got a movie that would probably cause at least some kids to have nightmares.There was controversy upon it’s release as it was given a U rating meaning 4 and up. A lot of people disagreed with that. I personally don’t think it’s necessarily for adults but I don’t think I would show it to someone younger than 12.
The story first appeared as a novella in the August 1980 issue of The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction.[1] Although appearing in a general circulation magazine, the story was written in the style of a children’s fable.
Disch said that he was unable to publish the story as a children’s book at first, because publishers thought the concept of talking appliances was too “far-fetched”,
The book did end up appealing to a lot of adults though
The movie on the other other hand might have been made with adults in mind
Though it is sometimes thought that the film was not released in cinemas because it failed to find a distributor,[12] in reality arthouse film distributor Skouras Pictures took on the distributing rights for the theatrical release, and was going to do evening screenings, noting it was more for college and young adult than kids.
I say might because I’m not entirely sure if this was the general consensus of the creative team.
If this is correct, I personally think is stupid cause it’s a movie about an animated toaster. Of course kids are going to be more drawn to it than adults are. That being said as a kid a lot of the death themes flew right over my head. Thinking about it, this movie is kind of similar to Watership Down in that everything is trying to kill them or at least could lead to their deaths.
In a lot of cases, it depends on how you frame the darker themes. You’d be surprised what you can get away with just by using metaphors.
Or by being Alex Hirsch, in which case you can put taxidermy heads vomiting blood on Disney XD (and later Disney Channel). To this day I wonder how that got past the censors.
But yeah, I find it strange that the gory rabbit movie which is “in your face” with the disturbing visuals was aimed at kids, whereas the cute talking-toaster movie which is less blunt about it was aimed at adults. How the heck does that happen?
Me: *spends five hours playing a monopoly, Mario Party cross-over board game with Winnie the Pooh*
ok but who is saying Kingdom Hearts is dark and edgy
A good chunk of the fandom outright and a lot of others implicitly by heavily embracing the darker elements to the point that Xehanort would be proud. You would not believe how many depressingly sad headcanons, fanfiction and fanart there are out there.
Ok but the games themselves are not THAT dark though. I’m not talking about fan work at all
No they’re not and that is why this post exists.
Well, there’s an argument for Chain of Memories (the main plot involves Sora slowly going insane as all sorts of shady stuff goes on in the background), KHUX (Keyblade War, end of the world, 90% of the cast is dead), and 0.2 (plot based around depression, and the whole sequence with Phantom Aqua wouldn’t be out of place in a game like Silent Hill if we removed the combat), but yeah, for the most part the games themselves aren’t really that dark due to most of the darker stuff being relegated to the original worlds for the most part, and our heroes spending most of their time in the Disney Worlds.
We are a book club/community server for people practicing and learning about witchcraft of all kinds. 16+. LGBTQ+ friendly. Equal parts silly and serious. (Maybe a bit more silly…)
We are not a formal coven (so no pressure!), just a server full of witches that love to read. As a community, we read and discuss a new book every other month as well as community events based on magical practices and reading such as:
Wreck this Grimoire
The Faery Games
challenges
Twelve Days of Tarot
monthly readathons
grimoire hangouts and more!
Beginner friendly, Liber Coven is a great place for discussing different practices with people from all over the US and even different parts of the world! We are a community that loves finding and sharing resources and getting and giving advice on everything from cleansing to spirit keeping.
Some other features of our server include:
Custom roles for everything from gender to astrological signs
homestuck does a LOT to make character death painful even though almost none of the deaths are permanent (and even the permanent ones are eeeeh because of the dreambubbles) but i think it mostly boils down to pulling away from the traditional idea that the tragedy of death comes from losing a loved one/a life being cut short, and towards a very compelling idea of death as personal trauma
the dead aren’t lost, and they can continue pursuing their ambitions and growing as people, but the tragedy is that they died at all, that they had to experience that violence and come to terms with existing in the amorphous semi-stasis of ghosts- or just keep living, knowing that they died
it’s not a major thematic thing and it’s communicated almost exclusively through art direction but it’s a very juicy idea that i really really like
Hi! We’d like to talk to you about “strong statements” – statements that can be shocking, debatable, or oversimplified.
And also about “strong arguments” – which tend to be logical and convincing.
People sometimes use strong statements as if they are strong arguments. But those are different things.
The title of this post is a strong statement. But it would be hard to make a strong argument that the title of this post is true.
“Strong” statements are strong in some ways. They can convey a forceful mood, or catch people’s attention. They can prompt people to be more certain and militant about opinions they already have. They can make people feel obligated to take a side. They can be a shortcut to expressing yourself when you don’t have the time, skill, or energy to use gentle and precise words.
In reality, we just think “strong” statements are less convincing than most people seem to think they are.
Sometimes it seems like because what you have to say is important, you should say it in the strongest terms possible. It can even feel like a moral obligation to speak up for your side forcefully.
Really, it depends on what you want to accomplish. When people hear something that disagrees with their beliefs too much, they tend to dismiss it out of hand.
A persuasive statement might be one that is harder for people to dismiss out of hand. Or a statement that the other person technically agrees with, but that has difficult implications for their argument.
Sometimes it’s the most understated or “weak” statements that end up being the most convincing.
If an idea is true and very important, then getting people to agree with it or think carefully about it is a good thing.
When your main goal is to be convincing, it’s useful to sometimes explain your deeply held beliefs in mild terms. It can make your argument stronger and more difficult to dismiss.
Even when it feels like it’s the other way around.
This can easily turn into blaming prejudice on the victims of prejudice. No matter how many victims of prejudice argue in mild terms, if a single one speaks about the harsh facts of prejudice, the people who’re engaging in prejudice can point to that person in order to dismiss all prejudice victims as “shrill” or “strident.” And concern trolls who frame themselves as allied to victims of prejudice will push indefinitely for strong arguments not to be made, always saying that the arguments should be made at some later date because making them now would just alienate people. It’s a cycle where speaking out against prejudice is not part of the Overton Window, so people don’t speak out or are marginalized for speaking out, so speaking out can’t become normalized and fall within the Overton Window.
We agree that the Letter From a Birmingham Jail is good reading on this issue.
We think there’s a big difference between the idea that strong statements are often not the most persuasive, and the ideas that strong statements are a valid excuse to dismiss arguments related to them or that it is somehow wrong to make strong statements.
It’s good to be reminded that people may fall into the trap of using the former idea to justify the latter ideas. We do not want to endorse doing that.
If you’re arguing with someone, tell them when they say something you agree with.
When you don’t, things get… confusing.
If you don’t know where you agree with someone, then you don’t really know where you disagree either. Let’s see what happens when you do stop to agree with people:
That went well. (At least until they were both struck down by The Brown Stone Spire for their shared unbelief.)
This also helps people understand why you disagree with them. We all have chains of reasoning in our minds. When two people disagree, it’s usually at least partly because the chain of reasoning in one person’s head parts ways with the chain of reasoning in the other person’s head.
If you don’t tell people which parts of their argument you agree with, it’s hard to pinpoint that spot where your opinions diverge. You leave them to guess.
People will rarely ask if they are correct about their guesses. It’s a deceptively automatic process for people to assume they already know why you disagree with them.
If you acknowledge exactly where someone’s reasoning overlaps with yours, it’s harder for them to fall into that assumption.
My problem: what do you do when it’s turtles all the way down? I’m not quite arrogant enough to call someone fractally wrong, but at the very least, I’ve encountered many whose beliefs are fractally unexpected, with each belief I didn’t see coming supported by an underlying belief I also didn’t see coming. For that matter, my own commonly expressed values are based on ideas that are based on ideas that are based on more ideas! By the time I make it far down enough to actually have a point in common, the other person is bored of the conversation!
Good point. Sometimes it’s turtles all the way down. If this happens to you often, you might know more about how to deal with it than we do. But a couple suggestions:
1) As soon as you notice that there are a lot of turtles, change your goal from convincing the other person to just understanding their perspective. This can sometimes make the conversation less boring for the other person, because you’re coming at it from a place of, “I don’t understand how you see this issue. Help me understand.” It makes the other person an expert in the topic at hand, and it’s fun to be the expert.
(That’s also a good time to ask yourself whether or not the conversation is worthwhile to you, since your goal in having the conversation has changed.)
2) Cut to the chase. Certain turtles tend to be on the bottom, and you can skip straight down to them. Things like,
“How do you decide whether you think something is true? I often look to groups of scientific studies. But I know some people prefer to reason deductively from bible verses or a certain belief set. Some people rely more on their own experiences or feelings. Some people reason inductively from the words of various people whose opinions they trust. Some people start with common errors of thought, and avoid beliefs that look similar to those errors. Can you describe how you tend to arrive at your conclusions?”
or,
“What do you want the world to look like? I have goals that involve all humans being safe, and happy, and free to do pretty much anything except hurt people or destroy good things. A lot of my opinions are based on those goals. Do you share my underlying goals? What qualities make up your idea of a functional community?”
Basically, find as many turtles as possible that are near the bottom of how you think, and throw them at people until something interesting happens.
That’s all the advice we’ve got for now. Thank you for commenting! ^_^
