"Why Did Jesus Die on the Cross?"

The main reason Jesus died on the cross was to defeat Satan and set us free from his oppressive rule. Everything else that Jesus accomplished was to be understood as an aspect and consequence of this victory (e.g., Recapitulation, Moral Influence, etc.).
This understanding of why Jesus had to die is called the Christus Victor (Latin for “Christ is Victorious”) view of the atonement. But, what exactly was Christ victorious from, and why? To find out the answers to these questions, we have to turn to the Old Testament, as that's what the apostles would often allude to in order to properly teach their audience the message they were trying to convey (Rom. 15:4).
The OT is full of conflict between the Father (YHVH) and false gods, between YHVH and cosmic forces of chaos. The Psalms speak of this conflict between YHVH and water monsters of the deeps (an ancient image for chaos) (Psa. 29:3-4; 74:10-14; 77:16, 19; 89:9-10; 104:2-9, etc).
The liberation of Israel from Egypt wasn’t just a conflict between Pharaoh and Moses. It was really between YHVH and the false gods of Egypt.
Regardless of whether you think the aforementioned descriptions are literal or metaphorical, the reality that the Old Testament describes is that humanity lived in a “cosmic war zone.”
The Christus Victor motif is about Christ reigning victorious over wicked principalities and Satan's kingdom, and is strongly emphasized throughout the New Testament. Scripture declares that Jesus came to drive out "the prince of this world” (John 12:31), to “destroy the works of the devil” (1 John 3:8), to “destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil” (Heb. 2:14) and to “put all enemies under his feet” (1 Cor 15:25). Jesus came to overpower the “strong man” (Satan) who held the world in bondage and worked with his Church to plunder his "palace" (Luke 11:21-22). He came to end the reign of the cosmic “thief” who seized the world to “steal, and to kill, and to destroy” the life YHVH intended for us (John 10:10). Jesus came and died on the cross to disarm “the principalities and powers” and make a “shew of them openly [i.e., public spectacle]” by “triumphing over them in [the cross]” (Col. 2:15).
Beyond these explicit statements, there are many other passages that express the Christus Victor motif as well. For example, the first prophecy in the Bible foretells that a descendent of Eve (Jesus) would crush the head of the serpent (Gen. 3:15). The first Christian sermon ever preached proclaimed that Jesus in principle conquered all YHVH's enemies (Acts 2:32-36). And the single most frequently quoted Old Testament passage by New Testament authors is Psalm 110:1 which predicts that Christ would conquer all YHVH’s opponents. (Psalm 110 is quoted or alluded to in Matthew 22:41-45; 26:64, Mark 12:35-37; 14:62, Luke 20:41-44; 22:69, Acts 5:31; 7:55-56, Romans 8:34, 1st Corinthians 15:22-25, Ephesians 1:20, Hebrews 1:3; 1:13; 5:6, 10; 6:20; 7:11, 15, 17, 21; 8:1; 10:12-13, 1st Peter 3:22, and Revelation 3:21.) According to New Testament scholar Oscar Cullman, the frequency with which New Testament authors cite this Psalm is the greatest proof that Christ’s “victory over the angel powers stands at the very center of early Christian thought.”
Because of man's rebellion, the Messiah's coming involved a rescue mission that included a strategy for vanquishing the powers of darkness.
Since YHVH is a God of love who gives genuine “say-so” to both angels and humans, YHVH rarely accomplishes His providential plans through coercion. YHVH relies on His infinite wisdom to achieve His goals. Nowhere is YHVH's wisdom put more on display than in the manner in which He outsmarted Satan and the powers of evil, using their own evil to bring about their defeat.
Most readers probably know the famous story from ancient Greece about the Trojan Horse. To recap the story, Troy and Greece had been locked in a ten-year-long vicious war when, according to Homer and Virgil, the Greeks came up with a brilliant idea. They built an enormous wooden horse, hid soldiers inside and offered it to the Trojans as a gift, claiming they were conceding defeat and going home. The delighted Trojans accepted the gift and proceeded to celebrate by drinking themselves into a drunken stupor. When night came and the Trojan warriors were too wasted to fight, the Greeks exited the horse, unlocked the city gates to quietly let all their compatriots in, and easily conquered the city, thus winning the war.
Historians debate whether any of this actually happened. But either way, as military strategies go, it’s brilliant.
Now, there are five clues in the New Testament that suggest YHVH was using something like this Trojan Horse strategy against the powers when he sent Jesus into the world:
1) The Bible tells us that YHVH's victory over the powers of darkness was achieved by the employment of YHVH’s wisdom, and was centered on that wisdom having become reality in Jesus Christ (Rom. 16:25, 1 Cor. 2:7, Eph. 3:9-10, Col. 1:26). It also tells us that, for some reason, this Christ-centered wisdom was kept “secret and hidden” throughout the ages. It’s clear from this that YHVH's strategy was to outsmart and surprise the powers by sending Jesus.
2) While humans don’t generally know Jesus’ true identity during his ministry, demons do. They recognize Jesus as the Son of God, the Messiah, but, interestingly enough, they have no idea what he’s doing (Mark 1:24; 3:11; 5:7, Luke 8:21). Again, the wisdom of YHVH in sending Jesus was hidden from them.
3) We’re told that, while humans certainly share in the responsibility for the crucifixion, Satan and the powers were working behind the scenes to bring it about (John 13:27 cf. 1 Cor. 2:6-8). These forces of evil helped orchestrate the crucifixion.
4) We’re taught that if the “princes of this world [age]” had understood the secret wisdom of YHVH, “they would not have crucified the Lord of glory” (1 Cor 2:8 cf. vss 6-7). Apparently, Satan and the powers regretted orchestrating Christ’s crucifixion once they learned of the wisdom of YHVH that was behind it.
5) Finally, we can begin to understand why the powers came to regret crucifying “the Lord of glory” when we read that it was by means of the crucifixion that the “handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us [i.e., the charge of our legal indebtedness]” was “[taken] out of the way [i.e., canceled]” as the powers were disarmed. In this way Christ “triumph[ed] over” the powers by "his cross” and even “made a shew of them openly” (Col. 2:14-15). Through Christ’s death and resurrection YHVH's enemies were vanquished and placed under his Messiah's feet, and ultimately His own in the end (1 Cor. 15:23-28).
Putting these five clues together, we can discern YHVH's Trojan Horse strategy in sending Jesus.
The powers couldn’t discern why Jesus came because YHVH's wisdom was hidden from them. YHVH's wisdom was motivated by unfathomable love, and since Satan and the other powers were evil, they lacked the capacity to understand it. Their evil hearts prevented them from suspecting what YHVH was up to.
What the powers did understand was that Jesus was mortal. This meant he was killable. Lacking the capacity to understand that this was the means by which YHVH would ultimately bring about the defeat of death (and thus, pave the road for the resurrection itself), they never suspected that making Jesus vulnerable to their evil might actually be part of YHVH's infinitely wise plan.
And so they took the bait (or "ransom"; Matt. 20:28, Mark 10:45, 1 Tim. 2:5-6). Utilizing Judas and other willing human agents, the powers played right into YHVH’s secret plan and orchestrated the crucifixion of the Messiah (Acts 2:22-23; 4:28). YHVH thus brilliantly used the self-inflicted incapacity of evil to understand love against itself. And, like light dispelling darkness, the unfathomably beautiful act of YHVH's love in sending the willing Messiah as a "ransom" to these blood-thirsty powers defeated them. The whole creation was in principle freed and reconciled to YHVH, while everything written against us humans was nailed to the cross, thus robbing the powers of the only legal claim they had on us. They were “spoiled [i.e., disempowered]” (Col. 2:14-15).
As happened to the Trojans in accepting the gift from the Greeks, in seizing on Christ’s vulnerability and orchestrating his crucifixion, the powers unwittingly cooperated with YHVH to unleash the one power in the world that dispels all evil and sets captives free. It’s the power of self-sacrificial love.

Why Penal Substitution Is Unbiblical

For the sake of keeping this already lengthy post as short as possible I'm not going to spend too much time on why exactly PSA (Penal Substitutionary Atonement) is inconsistent with Scripture, but I'll go ahead and point out the main reasons why I believe this is so, and let the reader look further into this subject by themselves, being that there are many resources out there which have devoted much more time than I ever could here in supporting this premise.

"Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:"-1 Corinthians 5:7

The Passover is one of the two most prominent images in the New Testament given as a comparison to Christ's atonement and what it accomplished, (the other most common image being the Day of Atonement sacrifice).
In the Passover, the blood of the lamb on the door posts of the Hebrews in the book of Exodus was meant to mark out those who were YHVH's, not be a symbol of PSA, as the lamb itself was not being punished by God in place of the Hebrews, but rather the kingdom of Egypt (and thus, allegorically speaking, the kingdom of darkness which opposed YHVH) was what was being judged and punished, because those who were not "covered" by the blood of the lamb could be easily identified as not part of God's kingdom/covenant and liberated people.
Looking at the Day of Atonement sacrifice (which, again, Christ's death is repeatedly compared to throughout the New Testament), this ritual required a ram, a bull, and two goats (Lev. 16:3-5). The ram was for a burnt offering intended to please God (Lev. 16:3-4). The bull served as a sin offering for Aaron, the high priest, and his family. In this case, the sin offering restored the priest to ritual purity, allowing him to occupy sacred space and be near YHVH’s presence. Two goats taken from "the congregation” were needed for the single sin offering for the people (Lev. 16:5). So why two goats?
The high priest would cast lots over the two goats, with one chosen as a sacrifice “for the Lord” (Lev. 16:8). The blood of that goat would purify the people. The second goat was not sacrificed or designated “for the Lord.” On the contrary, this goat—the one that symbolically carried the sins away from the camp of Israel into the wilderness—was “for Azazel” (Lev. 16:8-10).
What—or who—is Azazel?
The Hebrew term azazel (עזאזל) occurs four times in Leviticus 16 but nowhere else in most people's canon of the Bible, (and I say "most people's canon," because some people do include 1 Enoch in their canon of Scripture, which of course goes into great detail about this "Azazel" figure). Many translations prefer to translate the term as a phrase, “the goat that goes away,” which is the same idea conveyed in the King James Version’s “scapegoat.” Other translations treat the word as a name: Azazel. The “scapegoat” option is possible, but since the phrase “for Azazel” parallels the phrase “for YHVH” (“for the Lord”), the wording suggests that two divine figures are being contrasted by the two goats.
A strong case can be made for translating the term as the name Azazel. Ancient Jewish texts show that Azazel was understood as a demonic figure associated with the wilderness. The Mishnah (ca. AD 200; Yoma 6:6) records that the goat for Azazel was led to a cliff and pushed over, ensuring it would not return with its death. This association of the wilderness with evil is also evident in the New Testament, as this was where Jesus met the devil (Matt. 4:1). Also, in Leviticus 17:1-7 we learn that some Israelites had been accustomed to sacrificing offerings to "devils" (alternatively translated as “goat demons”). The Day of Atonement replaced this illegitimate practice.
The second goat was not sent into the wilderness as a sacrifice to a foreign god or demon. The act of sending the live goat out into the wilderness, which was unholy ground, was to send the sins of the people where they belonged—to the demonic domain. With one goat sacrificed to bring purification and access to YHVH and one goat sent to carry the people’s sins to the demonic domain, this annual ritual reinforced the identity of the true God and His mercy and holiness.
When Jesus died on the cross for all of humanity’s sins, he was crucified outside the city, paralleling the sins of the people being cast to the wilderness via the goat to Azazel. Jesus died once for all sinners, negating the need for this ritual.
As previously stated, the goat which had all the sin put on it was sent alive off to the wilderness, while the blood of the goat which was blameless was used to purify the temple and the people. Penal substitution would necessitate the killing of the goat which had the sin put on it.
Mind you, this is the only sacrificial ritual of any kind in the Torah in which sins are placed on an animal. The only time it happens is this, and that animal is not sacrificed. Most PSA proponents unwittingly point to this ritual as evidence of their view, despite it actually serving as evidence to the contrary, because most people don't read their Old Testament and don't familiarize themselves with the "boring parts" like Leviticus (when it's actually rather important to do so, since that book explains how exactly animal offerings were to be carried out and why they were done in the first place).
In the New Testament, Christ's blood was not only meant to mark out those who were his, but also expel the presence of sin and ritual uncleanness so as to make the presence of YHVH manifest in the believer's life. Notice how God's wrath isn't poured out on Christ in our stead on this view, but rather His wrath was poured out on those who weren't covered, and the presence of sin and evil were merely removed by that which is pure and blameless (Christ's blood) for the believer.
All this is the difference between expiation and propitiation.

The Content of Paul's Gospel Message

When the New Testament writers talked about “the gospel,” they referred not to the Protestant doctrine of justification sola fide–the proposition that if we will stop trying to win God’s favor and only just believe that God has exchanged our sin for Christ’s perfect righteousness, then in God’s eyes we will have the perfect righteousness required both for salvation and for assuaging our guilty consciences–but rather they referred to the simple but explosive proposition Kyrios Christos, “Christ is Lord.” That is to say, the gospel was, properly speaking, the royal announcement that Jesus of Nazareth was the God of Israel’s promised Messiah, the King of kings and Lord of lords.
The New Testament writers were not writing in a cultural or linguistic vacuum and their language of euangelion (good news) and euangelizomai would have been understood by their audience in fairly specific ways. Namely, in the Greco-Roman world for which the New Testament authors wrote, euangelion/euangelizomai language typically had to do with either A) the announcement of the accession of a ruler, or B) the announcement of a victory in battle, and would probably have been understood along those lines.
Let’s take the announcements of a new ruler first. The classic example of such a language is the Priene Calendar Inscription, dating to circa 9 BC, which celebrates the rule (and birthday) of Caesar Augustus as follows:
"It was seeming to the Greeks in Asia, in the opinion of the high priest Apollonius of Menophilus Azanitus: Since Providence, which has ordered all things of our life and is very much interested in our life, has ordered things in sending Augustus, whom she filled with virtue for the benefit of men, sending him as a savior [soter] both for us and for those after us, him who would end war and order all things, and since Caesar by his appearance [epiphanein] surpassed the hopes of all those who received the good tidings [euangelia], not only those who were benefactors before him, but even the hope among those who will be left afterward, and the birthday of the god [he genethlios tou theou] was for the world the beginning of the good tidings [euangelion] through him; and Asia resolved it in Smyrna."
The association of the term euangelion with the announcement of Augustus’ rule is clear enough and is typical of how this language is used elsewhere. To give another example, Josephus records that at the news of the accession of the new emperor Vespasian (69 AD) “every city kept festival for the good news (euangelia) and offered sacrifices on his behalf.” (The Jewish War, IV.618). Finally, a papyrus dating to ca. 498 AD begins:
"Since I have become aware of the good news (euangeliou) about the proclamation as Caesar (of Gaius Julius Verus Maximus Augustus)…"
This usage occurs also in the Septuagint, the Greek translations of the Jewish Scriptures. For instance LXX Isaiah 52:7 reads, “How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him who brings good news (euangelizomenou), who publishes peace, who brings good news (euangelizomenos) of salvation, who says to Zion, ‘Your God reigns.'" Similarly, LXX Isaiah 40:9-10 reads:

"…Go up on a high mountain, you who bring good tidings (ho euangelizomenos) to Sion; lift up your voice with strength, you who bring good tidings (ho euangelizomenos); lift it up, do not fear; say to the cities of Ioudas, “See your God!” Behold, the Lord comes with strength, and his arm with authority (kyrieias)…."-NETS, Esaias 40:9-10

This consistent close connection between euangelion/euangelizomai language and announcements of rule strongly suggests that many of the initial hearers/readers of the early Christians’ evangelical language would likely have understood that language as the announcement of a new ruler (see, e.g., Acts 17:7), and, unless there is strong NT evidence to the contrary, we should presume that the NT writers probably intended their language to be so understood.
However, the other main way in which euangelion/euangelizomai language was used in the Greco-Roman world was with reference to battle reports, announcements of victory in war. A classic example of this sort of usage can be found in LXX 2 Samuel 18:19ff, where David receives word that his traitorous son, Absalom, has been defeated in battle. Euangelion/euangelizomai is used throughout the passage for the communications from the front.
As already shown throughout this post, the NT speaks of Jesus’s death and resurrection as a great victory over the powers that existed at that time and, most importantly, over death itself. Jesus’ conquest of the principalities and powers was the establishment of his rule and comprehensive authority over heaven and earth, that is, of his Lordship over all things (again, at that time).
This was the content of Paul's gospel message...

Justification, and the "New" Perspective on Paul

The following quotation is from The Gospel Coalition, and I believe it to be a decently accurate summary of the NPP (New Perspective on Paul), despite it being from a source which is in opposition to it:

The New Perspective on Paul, a major scholarly shift that began in the 1980s, argues that the Jewish context of the New Testament has been wrongly understood and that this misunderstand[ing] has led to errors in the traditional-Protestant understanding of justification. According to the New Perspective, the Jewish systems of salvation were not based on works-righteousness but rather on covenantal nomism, the belief that one enters the people of God by grace and stays in through obedience to the covenant. This means that Paul could not have been referring to works-righteousness by his phrase “works of the law”; instead, he was referring to Jewish boundary markers that made clear who was or was not within the people of God. For the New Perspective, this is the issue that Paul opposes in the NT. Thus, justification takes on two aspects for the New Perspective rather than one; initial justification is by faith (grace) and recognizes covenant status (ecclesiology), while final justification is partially by works, albeit works produced by the Spirit.

I believe what's called the "new perspective" is actually rather old, and that the Reformers' view of Paul is what is truly new, being that the Lutheran understanding of Paul is simply not Biblical.
The Reformation perspective understands Paul to be arguing against a legalistic Jewish culture that seeks to earn their salvation through works. However, supporters of the NPP argue that Paul has been misread. We contend he was actually combating Jews who were boasting because they were God's people, the "elect" or the "chosen ones." Their "works," so to speak, were done to show they were God's covenant people and not to earn their salvation.
The key questions involve Paul’s view(s) of the law and the meaning of the controversy in which Paul was engaged. Paul strongly argued that we are “justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law” (Gal. 2:16b). Since the time of Martin Luther, this has been understood as an indictment of legalistic efforts to merit favor before God. Judaism was cast in the role of the medieval "church," and so Paul’s protests became very Lutheran, with traditional-Protestant theology reinforced in all its particulars (along with its limitations) as a result. In hermeneutical terms, then, the historical context of Paul’s debate will answer the questions we have about what exactly the apostle meant by the phrase "works of the law," along with other phrases often used as support by the Reformers for their doctrine of Sola Fide (justification by faith alone), like when Paul mentions "the righteousness of God."
Obviously an in-depth analysis of the Pauline corpus and its place in the context of first-century Judaism would take us far beyond the scope of this brief post. We can, however, quickly survey the topography of Paul’s thought in context, particularly as it has emerged through the efforts of recent scholarship, and note some salient points which may be used as the basis of a refurbished soteriology.
[Note: The more popular scholars associated with the NPP are E.P. Sanders, James Dunn, and N.T. Wright. Dunn was the first to coin the term "The New Perspective" in a 1983 Manson Memorial Lecture, The New Perspective on Paul and the Law.]
Varying authors since the early 1900's have brought up the charge that Paul was misread by those in the tradition of Martin Luther and other Protestant Reformers. Yet, it wasn't until E.P. Sanders' 1977 book, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, that scholars began to pay much attention to the issue. In his book, Sanders argues that the Judaism of Paul's day has been wrongly criticized as a religion of "works-salvation" by those in the Protestant tradition.
A fundamental premise in the NPP is that Judaism was actually a religion of grace. Sander's puts it clearly:
"On the point at which many have found the decisive contrast between Paul and Judaism - grace and works - Paul is in agreement with Palestinian Judaism... Salvation is by grace but judgment is according to works'...God saves by grace, but... within the framework established by grace he rewards good deeds and punishes transgression." (Paul and Palestinian Judaism, p. 543)
N.T. Wright adds that, "we have misjudged early Judaism, especially Pharisaism, if we have thought of it as an early version of Pelagianism," (Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said, p. 32).
Sanders has coined a now well-known phrase to describe the character of first-century Palestinian Judaism: “covenantal nomism.” The meaning of “covenantal nomism” is that human obedience is not construed as the means of entering into God’s covenant. That cannot be earned; inclusion within the covenant body is by the grace of God. Rather, obedience is the means of maintaining one’s status within the covenant. And with its emphasis on divine grace and forgiveness, Judaism was never a religion of legalism.
If covenantal nomism was operating as the primary category under which Jews understood the Law, then when Jews spoke of obeying commandments, or when they required strict obedience of themselves and fellow Jews, it was because they were "keeping the covenant," rather than out of legalism.
More recently, N.T. Wright has made a significant contribution in his little book, What Saint Paul Really Said. Wright’s focus is the gospel and the doctrine of justification. With incisive clarity he demonstrates that the core of Paul’s gospel was not justification by faith, but the death and resurrection of Christ and his exaltation as Lord. The proclamation of the gospel was the proclamation of Jesus as Lord, the Messiah who fulfilled Israel’s expectations. Romans 1:3-4, not 1:16-17, is the gospel, contrary to traditional thinking. Justification is not the center of Paul’s thought, but an outworking of it:
"[T]he doctrine of justification by faith is not what Paul means by ‘the gospel’. It is implied by the gospel; when the gospel is proclaimed, people come to faith and so are regarded by God as members of his people. But ‘the gospel’ is not an account of how people get saved. It is, as we saw in an earlier chapter, the proclamation of the lordship of Jesus Christ….Let us be quite clear. ‘The gospel’ is the announcement of Jesus’ lordship, which works with power to bring people into the family of Abraham, now redefined around Jesus Christ and characterized solely by faith in him. ‘Justification’ is the doctrine which insists that all those who have this faith belong as full members of this family, on this basis and no other." (pp. 132, 133)
Wright brings us to this point by showing what “justification” would have meant in Paul’s Jewish context, bound up as it was in law-court terminology, eschatology, and God’s faithfulness to God’s covenant.
Specifically, Wright explodes the myth that the pre-Christian Saul was a pious, proto-Pelagian moralist seeking to earn his individual passage into heaven. Wright capitalizes on Paul’s autobiographical confessions to paint rather a picture of a zealous Jewish nationalist whose driving concern was to cleanse Israel of Gentiles as well as Jews who had lax attitudes toward the Torah. Running the risk of anachronism, Wright points to a contemporary version of the pre-Christian Saul: Yigal Amir, the zealous Torah-loyal Jew who assassinated Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin for exchanging Israel’s land for peace. Wright writes:
"Jews like Saul of Tarsus were not interested in an abstract, ahistorical system of salvation... They were interested in the salvation which, they believed, the one true God had promised to his people Israel." (pp. 32, 33)
Wright maintains that as a Christian, Paul continued to challenge paganism by taking the moral high ground of the creational monotheist. The doctrine of justification was not what Paul preached to the Gentiles as the main thrust of his gospel message; it was rather “the thing his converts most needed to know in order to be assured that they really were part of God’s people” after they had responded to the gospel message.
Even while taking the gospel to the Gentiles, however, Paul continued to criticize Judaism “from within” even as he had as a zealous Pharisee. But whereas his mission before was to root out those with lax attitudes toward the Torah, now his mission was to demonstrate that God’s covenant faithfulness (righteousness) has already been revealed in Jesus Christ.
At this point Wright carefully documents Paul’s use of the controversial phrase “God’s righteousness” and draws out the implications of his meaning against the background of a Jewish concept of justification. The righteousness of God and the righteousness of the party who is “justified” cannot be confused because the term bears different connotations for the judge than for the plaintiff or defendant. The judge is “righteous” if his or her judgment is fair and impartial; the plaintiff or defendant is “righteous” if the judge rules in his or her favor. Hence:
"If we use the language of the law court, it makes no sense whatsoever to say that the judge imputes, imparts, bequeaths, conveys or otherwise transfers his righteousness to either the plaintiff or the defendant. Righteousness is not an object, a substance or a gas which can be passed across the courtroom. For the judge to be righteous does not mean that the court has found in his favor. For the plaintiff or defendant to be righteous does not mean that he or she has tried the case properly or impartially. To imagine the defendant somehow receiving the judge’s righteousness is simply a category mistake. That is not how the language works." (p. 98)
However, Wright makes the important observation that even with the forensic metaphor, Paul’s theology is not so much about the courtroom as it is about God’s love.
Righteousness is not an impersonal, abstract standard, a measuring-stick or a balancing scale. That was, and still is, a Greek view. Righteousness, Biblically speaking, grows out of covenant relationship. We forgive because we have been forgiven (Matt. 18:21-35); “we love" because God “first loved us” (1 John 4:19). Love is the fulfillment of the law (Rom. 13:8, 10, Gal 5:14, Jam. 2:8). Paul even looked forward to a day when “we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad” (2 Cor. 5:10), and he acknowledged that his clear conscience did not necessarily ensure this verdict (1 Cor. 4:4), but he was confident nevertheless. Paul did in fact testify of his clear conscience: “For our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our conversation [i.e., behavior] in the world, and more abundantly to you-ward” (2 Cor. 1:12). He was aware that he had not yet “attained” (Phil. 3:12-14), that he still struggled with the flesh, yet he was confident of the value of his performance (1 Cor. 9:27). These are hardly the convictions of someone who intends to rest entirely on the merits of an alien righteousness imputed to his or her account.
Wright went on to flesh out the doctrine of justification in Galatians, Philippians, and Romans. The “works of the law” are not proto-Pelagian efforts to earn salvation, but rather “sabbath [keeping], food-laws, circumcision” (p. 132). Considering the controversy in Galatia, Wright writes:
"Despite a long tradition to the contrary, the problem Paul addresses in Galatians is not the question of how precisely someone becomes a Christian, or attains to a relationship with God….The problem he addresses is: should his ex-pagan converts be circumcised or not? Now this question is by no means obviously to do with the questions faced by Augustine and Pelagius, or by Luther and Erasmus. On anyone’s reading, but especially within its first-century context, it has to do quite obviously with the question of how you define the people of God: are they to be defined by the badges of Jewish race, or in some other way? Circumcision is not a ‘moral’ issue; it does not have to do with moral effort, or earning salvation by good deeds. Nor can we simply treat it as a religious ritual, then designate all religious ritual as crypto-Pelagian good works, and so smuggle Pelagius into Galatia as the arch-opponent after all. First-century thought, both Jewish and Christian, simply doesn’t work like that…. [T]he polemic against the Torah in Galatians simply will not work if we ‘translate’ it into polemic either against straightforward self-help moralism or against the more subtle snare of ‘legalism’, as some have suggested. The passages about the law only work — and by ‘work’ I mean they will only make full sense in their contexts, which is what counts in the last analysis — when we take them as references to the Jewish law, the Torah, seen as the national charter of the Jewish race." (pp. 120-122)
The debate about justification, then, “wasn’t so much about soteriology as about ecclesiology; not so much about salvation as about the church.” (p. 119)
To summarize the theology of Paul in his epistles, the apostle mainly spent time arguing to those whom he were sending letters that salvation in Christ was available to all men without distinction. Jews and Gentiles alike may accept the free gift; it was not limited to any one group. Paul was vehement about this, especially in his letter to the Romans. As such, I will finish this post off by summarizing the letter itself, so as to provide Biblical support for the premises of the NPP and for what the scholars I referenced have thus far argued.
After his introduction in the epistle to an already believing and mostly Gentile audience (who would've already been familiar with the gospel proclaimed in verses 3-4), Paul makes a thematic statement in 1:16: “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.” This statement is just one of many key statements littered throughout the book of Romans that give us proper understanding of the point Paul wished to make to the interlocutors of his day, namely, salvation is available to all, whether Jew or Gentile.
In 1:16 Paul sets out a basic theme of his message in the letter to the Romans. All who believed, whether they be Jew or Gentile, were saved by the power of the gospel. The universal nature of salvation was explicitly stated. The gospel saved all without distinction, whether Jew or Greek; salvation was through the gospel of Jesus Christ. Immediately after this thematic declaration, Paul undertakes to show the universal nature of sin and guilt. In 1:18-32 Paul shows how the Gentile is guilty before God. Despite evidence of God and his attributes, which is readily available to all, they have failed to honor YHVH as God and have exchanged His glory for idolatrous worship and self-promotion. As a consequence, God handed them over in judgment (1:18-32). Paul moves to denunciation of those who would judge others while themselves being guilty of the very same offenses (2:1-5) and argues that all will be judged according to their deeds (2:6). This judgment applies to all, namely, Jew and Greek (2:9-10). This section serves as somewhat of a transition in Paul’s argument. He has highlighted the guilt of the Gentiles (1:18ff) and will shortly outline the guilt of the Jew (2:17-24). The universal statement of 2:1-11 sets the stage for Paul’s rebuke of Jewish presumption. It was not possession of the Law which delivered; it was faithful obedience. It is better to have no Law and yet to obey the essence of the Law (2:12-16) than to have the Law and not obey (2:17-3:4). Paul then defends the justice of God’s judgment (3:5-8), which leads to the conclusion that all (Jew and Gentile) are guilty before God (3:9).
Paul argues that it was a mistaken notion to think that salvation was the prerogative of the Jew only. This presumption is wrong for two reasons. First, it leads to the mistaken assumption that only Jews were eligible for this vindication (Paul deals with this misunderstanding in chapter 4 where he demonstrates that Abraham was justified by faith independently of the Law and is therefore the father of all who believe, Jew and Gentile alike). Second, it leads to the equally mistaken conclusion that all who were Jews are guaranteed of vindication. Paul demonstrates how this perspective, which would call God’s integrity into question since Paul was assuming many Jews would not experience this vindication, was misguided. He did this by demonstrating that it was never the case that all physical descendants of Israel (Jacob) were likewise recipients of the promise. In the past (9:6-33) as in the present (at that time; 11:1-10), only a remnant was preserved and only a remnant would experience vindication. Paul also argued that the unbelief of national Israel (the non-remnant) had the purpose of extending the compass of salvation. The unbelief of one group made the universal scope of the gospel possible. This universalism was itself intended to bring about the vindication of the unbelieving group (11:11-16). As a result of faith, all (Jew and Gentile) could be branches of the olive tree (11:17-24). Since faith in Christ was necessary to remain grafted into the tree, no one could boast of his position. All, Jew and Gentile alike, were dependent upon the mercy and grace of God. As a result of God’s mysterious plan, He would bring about the vindication of His people (11:25-27). [Note: It is this author's belief that this vindication occurred around 66-70 AD, with the Parousia of Christ's Church; this author is Full-Preterist in their Eschatology.]

Hi guys,
I [31m] feel like my partner [25f] is constantly on my case about not doing enough, or not giving enough.
I had a pretty shit start to life which meant that i started off on the backfoot, however I managed to graduate a MSc Computer Science last December and I have been looking for a graduate job ever since. I've had numerous video interviews, but I've been rejected by all except one place that has invited me to an assessment center in June.
About 6 weeks ago I applied for two companies that I really like the look of. One in defence and one in maritime services. Both looked like amazing opportunities and I was lucky enough to be invited to an interview for both. It was nice to finally have companies call me back, you know? Anyway, I had my interviews and prepared for them both as best I could. I felt like the interviews went very well, but unfortunately I got rejected by both companies on the same day last week.
I'll be honest, it broke me. I was really, really upset about it and began to feel completely hopeless, useless and defeated. I worked so hard to get educated, did the best that I could, got very high grades, but it feels like it has all been a waste of time.
I cried like a baby when I got those rejections and felt absolutely broken. My partner supported me through it and said to me "it isn't your fault" and that it's just a shit economy at the moment.
Fast forward to this week and my partner calls me (she's away visiting her parents). It started off fine at first as we were both talking about plans for the future. Basically, the conversation spiralled and she started saying that I'm not doing enough, that's its a males job to provide financially and that I'm not trying hard enough to get us ahead. I showed her this spread sheet I've kept that lists every single job I've applied for and what stage of the application I made it to. There are 128 jobs on that list. I felt so hurt because when I was super upset about my rejections last week, she supported me and told me none if it was my fault. Yet here she is insinuating that it is. I point this apparent hypocrisy out to her, and she says "it's always partially your fault".
I've applied to every single job available in this area and city a couple of hours away. Then she said that I don't work enough currently (I'm a healthcare worker). I remind her that I work 3x 12.5hr shifts per week which is about the limit of which I can handle tbh. I'm wiping ass and coping abuse all day, it isn't easy.
She then rebutted me by saying "what about last year when you were only working 2 shifts per week". Wtf, I was studying a Masters degree so of course I was working less. And during my dissertation I was studying roughly 6-8 hours. In my view, doing a MSc full time during the week and working 12 hours on Saturday and Sunday is commendable, and I was the only student in my cohort who worked as much as I did. Most just lived off their student loan. Yet here I am, being made to feel like I was a lazy pos. I feel like she had absolutely no appreciation for just how hard i worked tbh.
when I asked her "what would you do differently in my shoes?" She was unable to answer. Crickets. I would have expected her to be able to list exactly where she could see room for improvement, but nope. Then she brought up how I don't "contribute enough to the household financially or with chores". She makes this argument from time to time and it infuriates me. I pay more than 50% of our bills and more than 50% for groceries. I effectively bought a car for her to use almost exclusively (every day drives to her uni, or work, or her stables). She has possession of the car around 95% of the time, yet I've been paying atleast 70% of the running costs of it (and boy did the thing need some work over the last 2 years). But she completely disregards that because it doesn't contribute to our standard of living. Whatever the fuck that even means.
So I say to her, what about all the trips I've taken you on? Last year I took her to Australia, I paid for everything. She said "that doesn't count because it was to see your family". I then said how about me taking you to Greece the year before last? Or me taking you to Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Switzerland and Italy on a road trip the year before that?
Do you know what her response was? "You see I don't like when you pay for these holidays because you always end up using them against me". WTF! She literally complained that I don't contribute enough financially! Ugh what is this logic even?
Then she moves on and says I dont do enough chores. I bought this hook line and sinker when we first got together, but I've really stepped up my game in the last two years. I pointed out that I prepare us meals, I vacuum, I do dishes, walk the dogs, dust, put my shit away, keep the mirror clean, you name it. She always has a clean flat to come home to.
But she says "it's not to my standard so I don't consider it done". Wtf? Absolute bs, I pay far closer attention to detail that she does. I do a very thorough job.
Basically, my partner makes absurd criticisms of me that I do not think have any basis in reality. How should I handle this? Because I do love her, but I'm really finding this aspect of her personality very jarring, unfair and difficult to deal with.
Also, sorry for the huge essay. I really needed to vent tbh.

This is pretty light hearted imo (Also I have literally never posted on Reddit, lmk if I need to change this post in any way!)
So I follow the Tumblr AITA blog and recently there was a post from a film bro. He was asking if he was an asshole for calling his coworker stupid for liking Avatar (the blue people one).
To summarize his initial submission, he gave brief information on how he and his coworker (emphasis on him calling this guy his coworker) had movie nights. He made a point of saying his coworker had terrible movie taste which was why he often chose movies. This one time, though, his friend suggested watching Avatar.
This dude DESPISES the movie. Enough that, when his coworker gave reasons for why he liked the movie, this dude called him stupid. Multiple times. And then got into an argument bad enough the coworker slept on the couch. I'll get to that in a second.
Dude was very clearly expecting Tumblr to be on his side.
When I say this guy was an asshole, I'm saying that around 97% of people voted him an asshole. The poll ended recently, but the guy decided to make a response post. The AITA blog will usually reblog additional info posts, but this guy for most of this response was antagonizing the people who called him an asshole (myself included - some of the comments he addressed I had made in my initial judgement). He also doubled down on his friend being stupid because of having a bad taste in films.
The ONLY reason the AITA blog reblogged the response is because he - very briefly - clarified the couch comment.
Apparently, the guy wasn't just his coworker. He was his roommate too. (He never clarified if they share a bed.)
This is where I decided to be petty.
At the end of his response post, he claimed that people online couldn't think critically. And something about just how insufferable this guy was, not only in how he talked about media, but how he had no remorse for how terribly he spoke about and to his friend.
So me, being an English-loving and majoring college student who has been feeling a void at the lack of essays I have been required to write now that classes are out, decided to write a critical analysis of the post.
I initially focused on the response post, figuring that I would just implicitly write about the initial one. He had bullet points of the various comments the Tumblrinas made so I bullet pointed my analysis too. - I spoke about EACH of the points he made. - I applied rhetorical analysis to his response and, eventually, his initial submission (because this man did not comprehend that people were not, in fact, just mad at him because he disliked Avatar). - I analyzed the hell out of his tone. - I quoted exact sentences from the post to analyze specifically. - I CITED which paragraphs the sentences were from. - I brought in STATISTICS - twice! (I wasn't expecting this when I started writing the analysis, but got excited when I realized I could include it.) - I wrote a CONCLUSION too!
This man implied he wanted people to think critically about his post. So I chose to do a critical analysis of it.
I don't know, I stumbled upon the response late at night and the small idea to point put flaws in the logic of the response spiraled into an essay on a Tumblr post. But I actually did have fun! It's only been a couple weeks since classes ended, and while essays aren't the most fun, I've found myself missing doing critical analysis essays.
My professors and high school English teachers would be so proud. But also so sad that I never spent this much effort on my essays but spent it on a post the op will likely never read :')

I'm told women want a man who knows what he wants, so here's the whole nine yards. If there is anything here that you are not willing to accept, then don't. You will not change me now or years down the line. Obviously I intend to grow and mature (as one ought to), but I have decided who I am and what I want out of a relationship.
I am looking for a woman that I can make a permanent covenant bond with; I have no interest in flings or "long-term relationships."
I don't intend to come across as bitter or angry with any of this, just clear and up-front. It makes things easier for both of us.
A bit about me:
My faith in Christ is paramount in my life. I would not be where I am without him. In taking interests in various things, I've learned a lot about God's character and design. Each new thing I learn fills me with more worship of him and wonder at his works. It is very important to me that you share this admiration of God.
I have a full-time job that I am very satisfied with, but what I feel truly passionate about is art and storytelling. To be honest, I've hit a bit of a block lately as far as my output. But I've been trying to find my feet so I can make something valuable to share with the world. I think that art and stories are a fundamental part of being human, not just a luxury. So pretty much any kind of art will spark passion in me, be it music, cinema, video games, literature, video essay, sculpture, etc. I could go back and forth for hours on a lot of things. My hope is that you and I will be able to enjoy art together and create some of our own.
I frequently spend time with another gentleman from my Church and we enjoy conversations about personal projects and contemporary issues, along with walks along beaches and park trails. He is a very important friend in my life, and I am lucky to know such a kind soul. Things aren't well with my family, so I really need that kind of presence.
While I rely on my bicycle for transport (no car), it's not a problem for me. I've been riding bikes since I was in elementary school (maybe even before). It would be really nice to ride down some trails with you.
What I expect from you:
-You need to be a follower of Jesus Christ. God needs to be an active part of your life because I intend to raise our children under Biblical values.
-You need hobbies and interests apart from me. I'm fine with helping you find things you like.
-You need to have no mileage.
-You must be humble and respectful. "Boss babe" attitudes are not attractive to me.
-You cannot have any tattoos or piercings.
-No cosmetic products. It's not good for your body and I am attracted women, not makeup. This includes fake nails and fake eyelashes. I don't need you to look "pretty." You character is more important to me.
-Related to the previous, no use of image filters in photos. I do not like the type of people who are vain and vapid enough to feel the need to use filters on their photos.
-Again related to the previous, you need to have a limited social media presence. If you have a business or post something of value (like art, for example), then I have no problem. What I'm talking about is having an Instagram or Facebook account where you make random posts to nobody in particular to "update" the internet on your life or post tons of pictures of yourself online. Basing your self-worth on the comments and likes from strangers on the internet is unhealthy, and I find people's obsessive need to take pictures of themselves very unattractive and vain.
-If we marry, I expect you treat me as the head of the house. There can't be two leaders in a household because one will have to submit to the other.
-I expect you to view marriage as something that you put work into. Marriages are a team effort, so I expect you to be a help meet.
-You need to treat me like a partner, not an adversary. Getting into arguments and nagging me helps neither of us. You must have conflict-resolution skills and a solution mindset.
-You need excellent communication skills. This means understanding yourself, putting your thoughts into words other people can understand, and verbalizing things rather than expecting me to read your thoughts.
-You cannot play games with me. Telling me about other guys to make me jealous or planning dates for specific days to pressure me into committing to you are wicked and manipulative.
-While we are dating, you cannot have a "backup plan." I expect you to not be splitting your attention between me and other men. This includes spending time outside of work with other men (family excluded).
-You must be in shape. Don't be dishonest with yourself about your weight; check your BMI. This includes being underweight, anorexic, and bulimic.
-You cannot have taken any COVID-19 vaccinations from any provider.
-No smoking, drugs, or drunkenness.
-I expect you to completely renounce fast food if we date or marry. We will never feed our children McDonald's.
What you can expect from me:
-While we are dating, I will not be speaking to other women.
-I cannot meet your height, money, or attractiveness expectations. I am simply an average dude. I am critical, abstract, and imaginative in my thinking though.
-I will not ask you to do something that is unreasonable or demeaning. I will only ask of you what I expect from myself. No relationship is going to be 50/50 100% of the time, but I will put forth the effort I am able to. I expect the same out of you.
-I will not raise my hand against you. My hands will be a safe place for you.
-I will be available to listen to your troubles and help you bear through them.
-I will not demean you or humiliate you, whether or not you are in the room.
-I will show leadership in our house and exercise restraint with a mild temper.
-I will cherish you and treat you as my own body.
-I will devote myself to displaying my love for you in a language you understand, even if I am feeling distant from you because of troubles we face. I expect the same from you.
-I will not turn to another woman and betray you.
-I intend to keep every promise that I make with you.
-I will treat our children with patience and kindness, but diligently discipline them and instruct them appropriately.
Please tell me a bit about yourself and what you expect out of a relationship, but be practical and clear. A list of platitudes like "loyal, honest, etc" does not help me understand what you're looking for. Think about what your expectations look like in a tangible, everyday way.

Saturday 18 May 2024
Today in Philosophy of History
Further Elaborations on the Coming Coeval Age
My essay “The Coming Coeval Age” has appeared in Isonomia Quarterly for summer 2024. Last year I contributed an essay to the initial number of the journal. As with my recent paper in the Journal of Big History, “A Complexity Ladder for Big History,” this most recent essay isn’t narrowly about philosophy of history, but there are many philosophy of history themes in it.
The journal’s interest in the theme of isonomia was my point of departure for considering the institutional structure of civilization at the largest conceivable scales. What is isonomia? There is a passage in Book III of Herodotus known as the constitutional debate in which three speakers argue for the best form of government, with these three being monarchy, oligarchy, and democracy. Here is the first of three speakers in Herodotus advocating for isonomia:

“Otanes urged that they should resign the government into the hands of the whole body of the Persians, and his words were as follows: ‘To me it seems best that no single one of us should henceforth be ruler, for that is neither pleasant nor profitable. Ye saw the insolent temper of Cambyses, to what lengths it went, and ye have had experience also of the insolence of the Magian: and how should the rule of one alone be a well-ordered thing, seeing that the monarch may do what he desires without rendering any account of his acts? Even the best of all men, if he were placed in this disposition, would be caused by it to change from his wonted disposition: for insolence is engendered in him by the good things which he possesses, and envy is implanted in man from the beginning; and having these two things, he has all vice: for he does many deeds of reckless wrong, partly moved by insolence proceeding from satiety, and partly by envy. And yet a despot at least ought to have been free from envy, seeing that he has all manner of good things. He is however naturally in just the opposite temper towards his subjects; for he grudges to the nobles that they should survive and live, but delights in the basest of citizens, and he is more ready than any other man to receive calumnies. Then of all things he is the most inconsistent; for if you express admiration of him moderately, he is offended that no very great court is paid to him, whereas if you pay court to him extravagantly, he is offended with you for being a flatterer. And the most important matter of all is that which I am about to say:—he disturbs the customs handed down from our fathers, he is a ravisher of women, and he puts men to death without trial. On the other hand the rule of many has first a name attaching to it which is the fairest of all names, that is to say “Equality”; next, the multitude does none of those things which the monarch does: offices of state are exercised by lot, and the magistrates are compelled to render account of their action: and finally all matters of deliberation are referred to the public assembly. I therefore give as my opinion that we let monarchy go and increase the power of the multitude; for in the many is contained everything’.”

The three forms of government—monarchical, oligarchical, and democratic—are a perennial theme of Greek political thought that continues to echo through the history of Western civilization. Book III of Aristotle’s Politics goes into this in some detail.
After sending my essay off to Isonomia Quarterly I realized that one of the fundamental ambiguities about the idea of isonomia—and I would have included a footnote on this if I had thought of it sooner—is the ambiguity implicit in speaking in terms of the same law. What is it that is “the same” when we speak of the same law? “The same law” could mean that every particular law would apply to every particular person, or “the same law” could mean that the totality of the law, that is, the whole body of law, applies to the totality of the population. A body of law might involve different laws that apply differently to different persons, so that the second of the two senses does not entail the first of the two senses. If you read my essay you’ll find that I argue that the Greeks understood isonomia in the latter sense, so I won’t repeat that argument or the sources I cite for it here. But the fact that we might interpret a fundamental political idea in different ways poses the question of how these fundamental ideas outlined in antiquity apply to us today, if they do apply, and how they ought to apply now and in the future.
How will these traditional ideas be interpreted in future iterations of human society that might differ quite considerably from the world that we inhabit? How are we to understand isonomia within the context of a spacefaring civilization? For that matter, how are we to understand any classical Greek political theory in the context of future changes to society? For Westerners, this is our heritage, and how this tradition adapts or is adapted to changed conditions will give shape to the ongoing tradition of Western civilization.
In my essay I suggest that, on Earth to date, the expansion of political regimes has constituted what I call synchronic isonomia, when societies are distributed synchronically, that is to say, when they interact in the present across geographical distances. In a specifically legal context, this means the iteration of a body of law across a region of space. The possibility of what Frank White calls Large-Scale Space Migration would initially constitute synchronic expansion on a scale greater than that possible on Earth, but, if continued, it would eventually cross a threshold of diachronic isonomia, that is to say, when societies are distributed diachronically over time. In a specifically legal context, again, this means the iteration of a body of law, the same law, over a period of time. The strange, seemingly paradoxical aspect of this way of thinking is that the human scale of time could be distributed over a much larger cosmological scale of time while retaining its character as distinctively human history. I will try to explain how this could come about, but first I want to point out a peculiarity of terrestrial history that we haven’t seen as a peculiarity.
We are familiar with the idea that we see the universe form a peculiar point of view because we see it from the surface of a planet. Our planetary perspective has been the focus of the Copernican revolution, which has taught us that our apparently centrality in the universe is an artifact of our limited and parochial perspective. The Copernican revolution taught us to transcend our planetary perspective and to see the universe from a non-terrestrial perspective, but there is another aspect of the Copernican revolution that we haven’t yet explored, and that is seeing history from a non-terrestrial perspective. Part of this non-terrestrial perspective is simply to understand that, just as we are not in the center of space, we are also not in the center of time. But there’s more to it than this.
Einstein’s theory of relativity has made it possible for us to see time in a new way, and this can change the way we see history. In many of my episodes I have talked about the need to address the disconnect between philosophies of time and philosophies of history. History is constructed out of time, so a radical reconceptualization of time suggests a radical reconceptualization of history. The theory of relativity is such a radical reconceptualization of time, but many of the influences of relativity and gravity upon time are usually not noticed on a terrestrial scale, and all human history to date has occurred on terrestrial scale.
We can see the effects of relativity when we look out into the cosmos and use instruments to observe cosmological distances over which relatively is relevant, and to observe bodies so dense that they change the structure of spacetime. To date, our technologies have allowed us to measure the relativity of time under the influence of acceleration and gravitation, but we may, at some point in our history, develop technologies that allow us to interact with the universe at a scale at which relativity will change our history. When this eventuality comes to pass, we will eventually be forced to notice things about our history that hadn’t previously been problematic.
Our history to date has been the simplest possible history because it has all transpired on Earth. Earth is our sole inertial frame of reference for all historical events. There are relativistic effects within this inertial frame of reference, but they can only be detected by instruments of extreme precision because the influence of relativity lies below the threshold of human perception. For example, every planet drags its spacetime around with it as it rotates, which is known as frame-dragging. And even the relatively crude instruments of the nineteenth century could detect the perihelion precession of Mercury, which is an observable relativistic perturbation of the orbit of Mercury. This was first observed and noted to diverge from Newtonian predictions in 1859. These relativistic effects are, however, well below the threshold of impacting human history.
Technologies could change this. Relativistic space travel would be such a technology. This has been made famous by the so-called “twins paradox.” The twins paradox is invoked with greatest effect by the use of individuals to illustrate the difference between two clocks in different inertial frames of reference—usually a set of twins. This was called a paradox because it was initially thought to be impossible. We also saw this use of individuals to demonstrate the poignancy of time dilation in the film Interstellar. Here it is a father and daughter who are separated, with the father experiencing an accelerated inertial frame of reference, so that he returns, still a young man, to find his daughter dying as an old woman. This is great for drama, but this isn’t how any relativistic space settlement effort is going to play out, unless someone purposefully arranges something like this as a stunt.
Let us consider a simple example of what is more likely to occur. Suppose a settlement on another world established by several thousands of individuals, maybe tens or hundreds of thousands, like a small city, who travel to another planetary system, tens or hundreds or thousands of light years from Earth. The passengers on the starship in their accelerated inertial framework will experience time dilation, and they will preserve the cultural milieu of Earth has it was upon their launch. When they establish their settlement, there will be two human histories that bifurcate at the point in time when the interstellar settlement initiative was inaugurated.
However, the larger population on Earth will continue to drive cultural evolution at a far faster rate than in the settlement, while, in the settlement, human beings will be subjected to radically different selection pressures than prevailed on Earth, and they will also be a small community likely to retain the cultural milieu they possessed when they left Earth. We would then have two human histories, offset in time by the discontinuity of the relativistic travel time from Earth to the location of the settlement. For example, if the Earth and the settlement are a hundred light years apart, there would be a temporal discontinuity of a century. Life would go on at Earth, and a century later things would be different, but a century later the settlement would just be founded on the basis of Earth’s culture of a century before. This is a kind of historical complexity that we do not have today, but which could happen in the future.
Now imagine not one settlement, but a hundred or a thousand such settlements, each representing a temporal discontinuity from Earth’s history. A hundred settlements of ten thousand persons each would be an effort involving only a million persons, which is a very small proportion of the total human population; Earth wouldn’t even notice the absence of a million persons. Further, imagine travel among these settlements by relativistic spacecraft, and then the history of those who travel between settlements will be even more complex. In this context, depending upon the location of settlements relative to each other, and the date at which the settlement initiative was undertaken, an individual could effectively time travel into the past by traveling outward from Earth to a settlement that preserves the historical milieu at Earth at the time of its departure. You could not return to Earth without finding yourself accelerated into the future, but you could travel further outward to a settlement established from earlier in Earth’s history.
We get a similar, if slower result, if we substitute sub-relativistic spacecraft in conjunction with artificially induced torpor or hibernation—space arks, if you will. A slow boat to the stars would likewise preserve the culture of Earth from the time of its departure, with settlers being roused and resuming their lives once they reached the end of their journey, effectively cut off from a return to their familiar terrestrial milieu, but they would be able to visit other historical peer milieux if they take another slow boat further out into the cosmos.
The kind of distributed temporality that I am describing would achieve its greatest extent, and its greatest historical complexity, in the case of interstellar expansion. However, something similar could be realized on Earth at a smaller scale. Imagine a large scale hibernation project on Earth, such that about 10,000 persons are involved, enough so that there could be a rotating crew of a dozen or so that stays awake to tend the rest to make sure this continues to operate as intended. At some appointed time in the future, the whole community could be brought out of their hibernation and they would bring with them the culture of Earth from their date when they entered into hibernation, now displaced into the future. This would make it possible for temporally distributed communities to appear on Earth, without travel to other worlds or the use of relativistic technology. There are several science fiction stories with something like this as their approximate premise.
Whether through relativistic travel or human hibernation, historical communities could be preserved from all eras into some indefinite future, and in that indefinite future, these distinct historical communities would be synchronically present. This is what I call coevalism, when all ages of history are equally accessible. The idea of coevalism occurred to me many years ago, and not in connection with relativistic travel; I was thinking about the increasing fidelity of recording technologies. Written language is the most rudimentary form of recording technology, and is allows us the most rudimentary form of time travel, by being able to share the thoughts of those long dead. Since the industrial revolution, technologies have become much more sophisticated, with photographs, film, and sound recordings, with always-increasing fidelity to the original.
The rapid growth of computer technology and telecommunications in recent decades has made us aware that, if this arc of technological development continues, we will have nearly-perfect fidelity recordings. But in addition to recordings, we could generate states-of-affairs that never existed in fact, as in fantasy and science fiction, or we could generate the milieux of the past, both with a degree of fidelity equal to that of the present. Computers are already sufficiently sophisticated to generate simple films, and the reconstruction of past milieux can be done without computers as well.
In the original Westworld film on 1973, a past milieu was re-created using robots. Robotics hasn’t yet achieved this level of realism, but we could do this today with human actors, and we may yet do so someday with robots. In fact, we do this in a limited way. Theme parks re-create fantasy worlds populated with actors who make fantasy characters come to life. So coevalism can be realized at smaller scales than sparefaring civilizations, but it would be in a spacefaring civilizations with relativistic space travel in which the possibilities of coevalism would come to their fullest expression, and in which history would achieve its greatest complexity.
History is already extraordinarily complex, but I said earlier than our terrestrial history is the simplest history possible given the spacetime structure of the universe. It is when we begin distributing our civilization in cosmological time that historical complexity will cease to be a single linear continuum. The possibilities of spacefaring histories will be both facilitated and limited by our technology. These possibilities will also be facilitated and limited by the actual spacetime structure of the universe, which is a function of the distribution of matter in the universe. Just as terrestrial history has been shaped by oceans, mountain ranges, and rivers, cosmological history is shaped by stars, gravitation, and expansion, and human history that takes place within this cosmological context will be shaped by these forces. The point I want to make is that, while human history is complex, we are not necessarily limited by the complexity of the single inertial frame of reference of our homeworld.
When multiple inertial frames of reference are available to us, and travel between then is possible, the possible structures of history will dramatically expand, and with these possibilities human experience will dramatically expand, and I hope you can see how this can give a whole new meaning to the idea of speculative philosophy of history. In the conventional distinction between analytical philosophy of history and substantive philosophy of history, analytical philosophy of history is, according to Danto, “…philosophy applied to the special conceptual problems which arise out of the practice of history,” while substantive philosophy of history is a philosophical account of the historical process itself. This same distinction has also been called the distinction between critical and speculative philosophy of history by William Dray, and the distinction between formal and material philosophy of history by Maurice Mandelbaum. Here I emphasize speculative philosophy of history as that which reflects uon the actual historical process.
In addition to the speculative philosophy of history that considers the historical process, we can also imagine a speculative philosophy of history that concerns itself with the implications of speculative states-of-affairs upon history yet to come—historical processes not yet realized, but which may be realized someday. Many of the speculative states-of-affairs I can imagine involve human exploration and expansion into the cosmos. The speculative states-of-affairs we might encounter in the wider universe could involve scientific discoveries not yet made and technologies not yet constructed, the histories of life on other worlds and the histories of alien civilizations, as well as the histories that we will create for ourselves. It’s a big universe, and we might discover any number of unlikely or unprecedented existents.
In my episode on a complexity ladder for big history I argued that there may be distinctive emergents from historical knowledge, that is to say, the quantitative growth of historical knowledge may pass a threshold to become a qualitative change in historical understanding. What kind of emergents could these be? For example, an increase in the knowledge of our own history can change our understanding of ourselves. We are seeing this with the use of the genetic record to reconstruct the sequence by which human beings distributed themselves across Earth. In this way, epistemic emergents reshape our past and our understanding of ourselves.
In addition to these emergents from knowledge of our past, there may yet come emergents that arise from a temporally distributed civilization and the advent of coevalism. A temporally distributed civilization could also give rise to emergents in historical knowledge. The dawning realization of epistemic emergents yet to come in the future will shape our conception of what we can become (in contradistinction to increased knowledge of the past shaping what we are), reshaping our future, and we will need these epistemic emergents from a history of a greater order of complexity so as to understand the more complex world coming into being, and which our descendants will inhabit. Without these epistemic emergents we would not be able to understand the more complex world arising out of these novel technologies and the world they will bring into being. The future of philosophy of history has never been brighter, as we see that it will come to grappled with ever-larger and more complex problems.

Video Presentation

Youtube: https://youtu.be/fvmCoRrBiEs
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/p/C7IUqNAtSgQ/
Odysee: https://odysee.com/@Geopolicraticus:7/the-coming-coeval-age:d

Podcast Edition

Spotify: https://spotifyanchor-web.app.link/e/xkVzIKAcIJb
Amazon: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/a31b8276-53cd-4723-b6ad-a39c8faa4572/episodes/de1bbc0c-a72f-452b-a20d-40ccd56889e0/today-in-philosophy-of-history-the-coming-coeval-age
Iheartradio: https://www.iheart.com/podcast/269-today-in-philosophy-of-his-146507578/episode/the-coming-coeval-age-177527570/
​

New Flash everyone: the guy who hangs out with Daniel Greene(a pro-fairy rights socialist), is loved by redditors, and got a Hugo award is… woke. Who would have ever seen that coming? But, thanks to Jon Del Arroz making a video about it on May 18th, I am here to repeat the news back to you so there is an easily accessible source as to HOW he’s woke. Everything was revealed back in January 2023, but I want people to understand the implications and narrative that he’s presenting when he says his concerns about fairy rights. By the end of this, you will realize that people calling themselves Christian does not cause them to be immune to wokeness.
In fact, with how Christianity has influenced wokeness into existence, it’s likely a lot of "Christians" are what we can call “first wave wokeness”.
For context, Brandon Sanderson is a Mormon, part of the Latter-Day Saints (LDS). Mormonism is almost exclusively a US issue, and I’ve also noticed that there are a lot of youtubers who tend to be Mormon women(probably because they have other women in the house to do the chores). These people are great with money, big in business, and their church is anti-fairy. A lot of problems the fairy-rights activists have are with Mormon churches, which is strange for Europeans to witness with how open a lot of their churches are, outside of the US. Protestant, evangelical, unitarian, the national church of Denmark, it’s a big list.
But in 2008, Brandon wrote an essay about his Mormon beliefs on how Dumbledore from Harry Potter liked to have wands stirred around in his brown cauldron. His quote:

How does this relate to Dumbledore? I'm not trying to present him as an antagonist or a villain. All I'm saying is that if you believe in the truth of your message, then you shouldn't care if someone decent, respected, and intelligent is depicted as believing differently from yourself. Decent, respected, and intelligent people can be wrong--and you can still respect them. It's okay. That doesn't threaten our points, since we (theoretically) believe that they are eternal and stronger than any argument we could make.

Back in this time, Brandon had only been an author for 3 years, but he won an award for his first published book, Elantris. He was being careful with his words, and his take is considered liberal. He was trying to defend the backlash JK Rowling received for her (poor) choice of virtue signaling and tried to mend this defense with his own religion. Mentioning his religious views is what got him canceled back then, which he later apologized for in 2011:

I cannot be deaf to the pleas of [fairy] couples who want important things, such as hospital visitation rights, shared insurance, and custody rights. At the same time, I accept and sustain the leaders of the LDS church. I believe that a prophet of God has said that widespread legislation to approve [fairy] marriage will bring pain and suffering to all involved.

He was not backing down from his religion yet. His goal post moved to the legal ramifications of the US, which are separate from his church(remember, church and state, supposed to be separate in the US), but he was still saying his religion wanted him to oppose people calling it a marriage and having it in churches. This was a second “cancellation” that didn’t go very far, mostly because he was able to use religion as an excuse for his take, with the Christian Cake Packed With Fudge Scandal not happening yet(2018).
Fast forward to 2023, after he hangs out with a bunch of woke youtubers, and we get a new quote from Brandon:

The church’s first prophet, Joseph Smith, famously taught, “I teach them correct principles and they govern themselves.” My current beliefs are where I’ve arrived on my journey, as I attempt to show the love that Jesus Christ taught. I look forward to seeing further changes in the church, and I work to make sure I am helping from within it to create a place that is welcoming of [fairy] people and ideas. I would love, for example, to see the church recognize [fairy] marriage among its members. Both temporally and eternally. I would support ordaining [tinkerbell] men to the priesthood. (And would support the ordination of women, though that is another issue.)

That’s interesting. It seems like he made a complete 180 on his stance, claims that he’s always believed this new stance, blames Jesus for this new stance, and then doubles down on this new stance by adding female ordination(becoming a priest and higher) and even Tinkerbells. As time went on, he decided that his religion was totally wrong about fairies, and this 13 year difference means way more than the nearly 200 years Mormonism has been around. I believe a fellow Mormon, Shadversity, would love to have a discussion about how any of this makes sense, but I’m starting to feel that he’s the same way. Who knows if Ethan Van Sciver understands Mormonism as well as Brandon Sanderson does, with how easy it is to manipulate prophecies and reinterpret scripture.
But that’s been the point for a while, right?
Wokeness is here to restructure both historical evidence and even religions, in order to shift cultures and social institutions to obey this progressive change. Words are changed in the dictionary, social “norms” are changed to be updated for a “modern audience”, and postmodernists like Foucault were able to trick college kids into thinking the Greeks were all pixie fairies. Once a critical theorist gets their hands on something with power, their goal is not to keep it as it is. It is to keep it for themselves. This is why you will hear these people say everything is subjective, which is secret code for “Look at me: I’m the captain of reality now.”
But wait, it gets better! Brandon Sanderson continued with:

Back in 2007, I was mostly known only in my community, not to the world at large. The essay, then, was directed at my local community, and was more controversial among them (for being too liberal) than it was controversial to the world at large for being [fairy]phobic. That might surprise you, if you’ve read the excerpts that often float around the internet. This was mostly me trying to encourage other members of the church to be more open and welcoming of [fairy] characters and ideas.
That said, the essay does display the casual bigotry common to people who (like myself) have lived lives where we haven’t had to deal with some of the issues common to the lives of people suffering discrimination. Many of the assertions (such as my view on [fairy] marriage) do not reflect my current stance. After writing it, and interacting with those who found it objectionable–even painful–I came to understand them and their experiences better. Though they did not owe me that honor, they gave it freely.

You see, he's honored to hear about the life of a bug chaser.
Brandon cares deeply about the pain he caused to his wallet… I mean the fairies who saw his essay. He was an award winning author back then, he didn’t know it would be a global thing. It was supposed to be only seen by people in Utah, that’s it. This is what we call: bullshit. The woke rely heavily on gaslighting and pretending they’re ignorant of everything, while telling others that they need to learn and understand EVERYTHING about a subject before they are even able to mention it.
He was already big on reddit, he knew all about his fandom, and he knew about his publisher, Tor. The only thing that really changed is that now he is unable to stick to being liberal and he has to present himself as progressive. Why? Well, the new Amazon deal happened recently, and he’s the writer of the series The Wheel of Time. As if Rings of Power wasn’t evidence enough of how Amazon mistreats their properties, Brandon was forced to erase his own past, like Agent J in Men in Black, burning his own hands in the process.
I’m not surprised that he’s woke or even that Christians are falling to this woke inquisition. When I said first wave wokeness, I would like to clarify why it’s the catalyst for all of this stupidity. Wokeness is not of Christian values, but instead a parasite upon Christianity, in the same way Gnosticism and Satanism would be. When Christianity started to allow new sects, and a lot of these were considered valid, the crazy sex cults of the 60s opened the floodgates for a bunch of crazy reinterpretations. It’s the same way as how there are still circles of Christianity that go for flat earth theory or say that dinosaurs don’t exist, with these people usually at the forefront of the home-schooling movement.
It’s not that home-schooling is bad by itself, it’s that bad people use it to then have the good people using it be wrongfully grouped into the same area, in the same way gun-ownership does. This type of bastardization has always been a problem in the US, due to the lack of authority over what makes something categorized as such a thing, thanks to liberalism allowing the freedom to constantly change things. As time went on, this liberalism changed into progressivism, with the key difference being that liberalism is an allowance of change while progressivism is an enforced change. The liberalism of the 1800s allowed the Confederates to claim Christianity approved of their enslavement of black people, by blaming the story of Ham and using scripture to claim it was okay to enslave certain people for generations. We always see this strange cherry-picking of scripture from fake Christians, and this problem has expanded into the Vatican itself with the current and following generations of Popes.
A lot of times, we’ll hear news about how Christians are under attack, a bakery is targeted to expose discrimination, or even where people claim they were banned from twitch for being Christian. But what they get wrong is that they are in the same circle as liberal and progressive Christianity, their openness created this weakness to tourism, and most Christian circles have been taken over in the US since before the 60s. The south has a culture of being liberal, Mormons have a culture of being liberal, protestants are very liberal, all because the US began as a liberal culture in the form of classical liberalism. The libertarian argument is always used by these liberal groups, that changes into the progressive enforcement, and over the years these liberal people get infected by the virus.
Add money to the mix, and we have ourselves an endless chain of liberal minded people falling to wokeness. The “redemption” narrative, along with original sin, from Christianity is currently its main weakness. The appeal to ignorance is another weakness, with people playing skeptic as a snake slithers through the grass. Christianity isn’t the problem by itself, it’s the naivety that comes from blind faith, which then expands into a contradictory blind faith that people are good inside, only to later wonder why everything is changing for the worse when evil people are put in charge. Fantasy stories have been under attack by the woke for quite a while, long before they tried to appropriate Tolkien with Rings of Power.
The fantasy that is controlled by the woke is an extension to their attack on religion, because to them a fantasy story is no different than a bible. Mythological presentation, symbolic themes, a dream-like world to present morals to follow; the entire thing has been used by Brandon to then have him later claim that he’s always had fairy characters since the beginning. Sure, his religion says fairies are bad, but then he virtue signals by claiming he’s always made fiction about how they’re good. He would never say this if the publishing world made sense and if publishers were the way they were in the 1950s. That is because he would never have to choose between religion and money back then, with money always mattering more to the typical materialist.
I’m sure people will say that I’m being hard on Christians, or that I’m evil for saying this, or even that I am a satanist for noticing. These people would only be angry at the truth being said, which is the opposite of what Christianity teaches. Fantasy writers, like Brandon, have a lot of supporters, with this support merging between the woke and Mormons. So many feel that they need to make sense of their fandom, so they claim their religion is wokeness, converting it into blind Satanism. This is far from the truth and we need to condemn those who focus solely on radical subjectivity.
Especially if they blame God for their stupid takes, like how Brandon does now.

After reading the last chapter, I finally figured out why the usual rants about Shigaraki from MHA being fully responsible for his own choices instead of getting sympathy for his past ring hollow to me. Namely, the fact that his childhood of being groomed as a spare meat puppet for the main antagonist isn't really his childhood but his immediate present. A lot of these arguments treat Shigaraki as an independent adult, forgetting a very important fact: that guy spends only 6-8 months without being groomed by his master.
As in, in his total life he spent less than a year making his own choices and his own human connections and even then they were partially engineered for him. By the series timeline, the only time he’s not having All for One either directing him personally or personally pulling the strings right beside him is the few months between battle for Kamino and end of the Jaku hospital raid. Even if we are being generous with time and assume that doc Garaki’s experiment’s don’t feature into grooming process, which is a massive stretch since he was literally being remade into perfect meat puppet for All for One to inhabit, this leaves us with Shigaraki being independent for a much less than a one full year in his whole life.
I want to repeat it for emphasis, this guy was making his own decisions for less than a year in his life. His abusive past wasn’t an old event he had a time to outgrow, it was essentially his immediate present. Saying that Shigaraki is an adult fully responsible for his actions rings hollow since he is a little more than a manipulated puppet that only recently learned that he’s capable of making his own decisions and properly lashing out against his master.
The idea that this guy was supposed to act as a moral adult capable of understanding that his childhood trauma doesn't justify him is absurd, because it assumes that he was supposed to just pick up a healthy moral compass out of nowhere and grow past his lifelong brainwashing within roughly six to eight months between his master’s defeat and him becoming a literal meat puppet.
So, should Shigaraki be stopped? Yes, of course. He’s a danger to everybody around him due to being a mentally unstable wreck that’s showing signs of clinical emotional retardation. And I’m using this term in the literal meaning of him being set back in emotional development. This guy is, from a practical point of view, a monstrous abomination that can’t be contained without killing him. But the question of this essay isn’t whether or not Shigaraki is a monster. It’s whether or not he can receive sympathy for his life of constant brainwashing.
I believe that while Shigaraki should be seen as a literal rampaging monster he is, he still deserves some clemency in his judgment on the account of a little more than an unstable, brainwashed experiment lashing out against his pain. Shigaraki is a monster in a more literal, tragic sense of being a wretched creature unfit to be judged to the moral standards of a normal human.
To conclude it, I sincerely believe that seeing him as a threat that needs to be stopped doesn’t mean that we can’t acknowledge that the main responsibility for him becoming it lies in All for One and doctor Garaki who literally made him into the impossible to contain monster.

Hi everyone. I've noticed an uptick in the amount of submissions that aren't about the past. I'd like to keep the conversations here about changes to historical events and I'm requesting feedback on a "Nothing after 1999" rule.
Right now the rules ask that we keep questions to issues at least six years old, but that seems to enable a lot of crossover into current events. For instance, the 2016 US Presidential Election technically falls into that range, but it's hard to talk about it without getting into more recent political events. There's also a lot of questions that just ignore even the six year rule, like, "What if Hamas cooperated with Fatah on the Oct 7 attacks?", or questions about the future like "What is South Korea's birth rate remains low?" Many of these non-historical threads devolve into arguments about contemporary social issues. I'd really like this place to avoid some of the heat that shows up in political subreddits.
We have plenty of places to argue with each other about modern events, but not so many places where we can ask important questions like, "What if Neanderthals colonized Antarctica?" or "What if the Pirate Queen Zheng Yi Sao established a dynasty?" or "What if Bermuda was the size of Hawaii's Big Island?"
What do you all think? Are there other good ways to keep the subreddit on topic that aren't too stifling?

So I was a fan of the LN's from back when the first season released. The things I identified with then, and the things I love about it now are still largely what I love about it. And I was for a long time willing to turn a blind eye to ALOT of what I felt were unnessicary parts of the story, as, this series is the work of an author, not something made FOR me. However as time has gone on, the series has leaned more into it's less savory elements, and it does genuinely hamper my enjoyment of the series now, to the point that I'm hesitant about the series moving forward (I stopped right before reading the succession arc). I'm just curious about more broader perspectives on the series, as someone who's going to attempt to lay out more than just "ew incest gross" arguments. I'd be happy if people are willing to engage in a more genuine discussion, but if not, hope you can at least enjoy the read.
I'll try and start positive, because I want to put it out there, I was largely positive on the series as a whole, and have recommended it to multiple friends with some pretty major caveats. And I have rolled out good faith defenses of each problematic elements of the show with in universe examples and reasoning. So the things that I genuinely love about the series. At the time, as someone who dropped out of collage, while always thinking myself the smartest guy in the room, it was easy to identify with a story that highlighted a character who's society's measure of a man wasn't accurately taken. I've since grown a lot since then, but I still do love this aspect of the story. Hatori's line saying "so this is what happens when a test doesn't accurately measure someone's strength" is a line that sticks with me to this day. I also love how deep the political intrigue is thought out, not to be overly exaggerated in my analysis, but there are times where the levels of geopolitical implications of certain actions are thought about on a level that you would expect from traditional spy fiction/thrillers. The fact that the implications of magical weapons and the socioeconomic implications of things like a fusion generator are taken into account with such detail is amazing to me. It isn't given a one side interpretation but rather a very realistic look at how the powers in play would fight over the use, implementation, and restrictions that might have to be placed on such technology.
Also the magic system, i feel like I don't have to preach to anyone about how cool it is, but it's cool, straight up, it's just cool, as a tech guy, to see the fusion of technology and magic in this setting is awesome.
Lastly the imperfect nature of the main character was always interesting to me. While the anime only ever hints at Tastuya's insecurities with subtext, LN fans will know his though process is PLAGUED with indecision and caution that remove him soley from the OP MC archetype that never thinks about or suffers the consequences of his actions. Yes in practice he is an OP MC, but just like how society inaccurately measures his strength because they don't value the thing's he's good at, the really fantastic character work putting in the juxtaposition of his OWN values, not aligning with his own strength is really smart character writing. Tatsuya himself doesn't care about regrowth, or his crazy abilities and capacity for magic despite his apparent disabilities in the magic department. While many people see him and recognize how powerful he is, none of that is what HE values. He values more than anything are the technical skills required to change the world through magical engineering, and while he makes GREAT strides throughout the series, ultimately he isn't at the point (where I am in the series) to effect the real kind of change he would like to see, outside role as the Yotsuba's secret weapon. The kind of ambition he might have fostered normally as just a young man, is still evident with his passions outside of the crazy family situation he was forced under.
Which is something else I love about the series, but with a bit of a mixed bag of feelings. The world building is genuinely really cool from a near future sci-fantasy setting. The staging of the energy crisis that led to the 3rd world war, the emergence of Mages, and the united pact against nuclear arms, only to be replaced by the very checks that locked the nations from nuclear armageddon. The cleaver setup and world play between the 10 master clan's naming conventions and even to a lesser extent the 100 supporting families, gives such a rich texture and great opportunities to have ENDLESS but distinct characters coming from every facet of society. Characters like the Chiba get to be all one note swordsman, then build upon individual character traits to differentiate them. Even the side stories with Morisaki Shun give texture to what otherwise should have been just a one off character that was done with after the first arc (honestly I wish we saw more of him as the series went on, and the ramification of him protecting the heiress of the no head dragons, the series clearly doesn't mind chinese influence being a driving antagonistic force, it would have been interesting to see them explore more morally complex but not completely antagonizing forces).
And that lead some to some of the negatives. In the same vein that the world building is very well thought out, I cannot view this piece as a piece of fiction divorced from the real world. Can you explain the incest, the way he writes female fashion and women with in universe explanations? Yes absolutely and I have gone to bat for it in the past. Preserving genetic bloodlines to increase the magical powers of a generation of magicians, when such a small subsection of the population have any degree of magic talent to begin with, would be paramount in the national defense of a country. Having siblings marry each other is both not even the craziest thing I can imagine NOR is the least crazy thing the SERIES has done to justify this. The fashion sense was born the energy crisis that predated world war 3, caused clothing to become heavier out of necessity and it became fuax pas to show as much skin, both as a means of survival and as a way to signal you had enough resources to keep yourself clothed. While the climate has recovered people's sense of fashion hasn't caught up yet, which is a great IN universe explanation for the more conservative forms of dress that seem socially permissible in the series. And the way they treat women as ladies constantly saying "is would be improper for a lady to be out at night by herself" can be (and this one is LESS SUPPORTED by the text but I think could be explained and inferred) to be part of the need to preserve reproducing members of society after a great famine that predated WW3 and further more of the "nobility" class of magicians which this behavior clearly emulates.
The problem with all of these is, the text also clearly wants to have it both ways and it just betrays a clear taste the author has that I find distasteful in the REAL world. Sure you tell women to cover up, but then you take every opportunity to put them in summer dresses, or skimpy costumes for performances, and dress up scenes. While all of this makes sense IN universe, I can't help but feel this is just a pandering to real world markets that like these niches, or further points to the authors own thoughts on the matter, with a regressive social structure that see's women lacking less moral and societal agency, having to "cover up" as it were, and the whole incest thing. It would be one thing if the series SAID anything about this. An interesting exploration on how both the Yotsuba and society as a whole put such immense pressure on all of these teenagers regardless of how competent they are, and them breaking that cycle of generational expectation would be perfectly in line with the broader social change Tastsuya is trying to work towards with his engineering endeavors. Learning to actually heal from, learn from, and distance himself from the ultimately toxic relationship he's being forced into with his sister would earn MASSIVE points in my book for actually tackling an uncomfortable topic with some nuance.
I'm going to sidebar for a moment because I know a lot of people love Miyuki and Tastuya in both the fanbase as a whole but this sub in particular. I'm going to approach this, in good faith and say all of you are fans of the characters and I'm not going to, nor do I think a majority of fans are problematic in their liking of this relationship. While I personally feel like the devotion Miyuki shows is pandering, as I said in universe it can all be explained and people can enjoy fiction for any number of reasons, I don't think anyone is gross or whatever for enjoying a pairing when the text of the show so adamantly presents it in the most positive light possible. BUT WITH ALL THAT SAID, i would be doing the rest of the series, which is so well thought out, to not lend a critical eye to the absolute blindspot the series has for this relationship. Miyuki's devotion to Tatsuya is born of her realization after being saved by him in Okinawa, that her life belongs to him because he saved it, and she will be at his side against all the injustices that he has and will continue to face. But that kind of single hearted devotion, is by definition, toxic to her growth as a person. No one can LIVE for another person and be a fully fleshed individual, it just isn't healthy and it cheapens what could be such a more powerful character that by her own rights has every right to grow with ambitions that still can ABOSLUTELY grow in parallels with, and in support of her brother. But the story doesn't really explore that, every choice she ever makes is with the approval of her brother or his ultimate success in mind. You cannot seriously get me to buy that their engagement and eventual marriage is a healthy one under these conditions. I am a modern man, I like my wife to be as strong willed as I am so we can make joint decisions about our life that we can both agree on, so hell call me biased but I don't actually think there's anything wrong with traditional relationships, but that's the thing, EVEN in traditional relationships, women aren't the objects that they're commonly straw manned into. While not all traditional relationships were like this, the foundation of them is supposed to be founded upon the idea that while men could be out in the world, providing for the family, the women would be at home nursing children, and making sure the HOME was taken care of. In practice this meant a lot of women were actually empowered to make many of the purchasing decisions for the house, under ideal circumstances (again in actuality I acknowledges the more problematic aspects of these relationships in history and that isn't the point of this post).
I bring all of this up to say that Miyuki isn't given the agency to grow enough as her own person outside being sometimes selfish over her brothers attention of her. If I had to write an essay on Tatsuya's driving purpose in life, I could write at length on interesting aspects of his character and his own inaccuracies when judging his own value, when he's so uniquely capable of judging others. But there is no similar depth given to Miyuki and that's just sad because the GLIMCES we get of her character are ACTUALLY great. Her interactions with Lina, were highlights brining to her a character that is as close to being her peer as we had up until that point in the series, but still having her show compassion to her situation because of how much it mirrored Tatsuyas despite being "competition" and someone who ostensibly was opposed to her brother. Her interactions could have been so much better with Ichigo Masaki ( a criminally underused character as a whole) but they never amount to anything other then him getting lil'broed the entire series. And Kuduo Minoru is just underutilized in his debut appearance during the upcoming Ancient city insurrection arc that's about to be animated. Tatsuya is able to be measured up against these characters to further his growth and further exemplify what sets him apart as an interesting character and Miyuki doesn't get the same opportunity.
There is so much more I can say, but this is crazy long and I suspect few people will read it all anyways. Some of this might be ranty but I have been stewing on these thoughts for ages, and with no one in my circle who has stuck out the series as far as I have, my only recourse is the broader fanbase to discuss my thoughts on the matter.
TL;DR- Tatsuya, the world, and the magic systems, the consequences, and the complex web of motives within the narrative are all huge pluses for the series, that ultimately get dragged down by the inordinate amount of time spent on what I feel is either pandering to certain audiences, or betray the authors less than savory tastes, that more than just being morally outrageous (because I don't really care about that) serves to under cut the otherwise great writing of the series, and I think that's the real crime. The incest doesn't bother me because a fictional sister and brother get together, it bothers me because it robs me of the potential character growth both of them could have had, fighting back against another backwards system in this world born of political and social necessities that would have rhymed with all the other themes of the series.
EDIT: yes I know I can just drop the series, if it isn't for me, and I might I really don't know, I'm just frustrated at what could be something that has so much potential, be inordinately focused on the least interesting aspects of it.

Hi friends, I wrote an essay about my personal spiritual search coming from an atheist background. It is specifically about rational (and metaphorical) arguments for why traditional thinking might make sense for ex-atheists.
I would greatly appreciate your thoughts. Thank you! https://orthodoxtao.substack.com/p/tradition-and-rationality

Hi friends, I wrote an essay about my personal spiritual search coming from an atheist background. It is specifically about the perennial approach to religion and some rational (and metaphorical) arguments for why traditional thinking might make sense.
I would greatly appreciate your thoughts. Thank you! https://orthodoxtao.substack.com/p/tradition-and-rationality

This is a ridiculous question - I am aware. BUT one of my very good friends went to Cambridge for his undergrad and MIT for his doctorate in math. He has several published papers and works for a hedge fund in New York. I'm 24 and a nontrad student going to community college, I'll be 25 when I apply just for some context. He lives in NYC and I live in Chicago. I was taking a look at the transfer app and there is a section for family members and information about them regarding their education levels and whatnot and I told this friend about it. He suggested putting him down in the "Spouse/Significant Other" category as my significant other to strengthen my application a little bit. His argument is Columbia is in New York and it would make perfect sense to move where your significant other lives and I could briefly mention that in my essay about reasons to transfer. He also thinks it would look good to subtly say I am already somewhat connected. I am aware this is obnoxious but I kind of see his points. On the other hand, we aren't actually dating. We have pictures together on instagram already so I'm not super concerned about them finding out it just seems so silly but I can kind of see his point.
I'm projecting here but I'll most likely be graduating with a 3.75 GPA. I have a really bad track record with school when I was younger. I only got into college at 18 because of my SAT scores and I was in and out of school for a long time not really trying. I have an interesting story for other reasons and I feel like I'll have solid essays. My EC will just be my work experience working in a restaurant through the school year and interning at a fine art gallery here. The gallery is giving me incredible experience though and is allowing me to do really valuable things (independently close deals and collect commission, organize events at the gallery with other organizations, work the events and afterwards am able to join everyone etc.) so I'm learning a lot that I can put down on my resume and meeting a lot of people. I am starting to organize networking events at the gallery with a young entrepreneurs organization and will be reaching out to other entities for similar events. One of the investors is also teaching me business side (specifically RFPs) and I'm hoping to start doing that by the end of summer. I'll be graduating in December and applying for financial econ with a minor in art history for fall '25. I don't think I have a super great school background/GPA but I know I'll get great rec letters and I'm learning and gaining experience in the industry I'm applying for just in a smaller market and would love to be able to do something similar and start making connections in New York.
I feel like I have a strong reason to transfer and I'm doing good things to put on the application but Is still feel insecure about my stats. I talked to my friend about this and thats why he suggested what he did. I'm torn about it. I don't know if it's worth lying but the likelihood is low they would even know. I'm not sure if it would even help or if I need it. Wondering what you guys think? Is it worth the risk? I know I don't have like a phenomenal GPA but I'm really hoping the work experience will hold it up a bit more. Not sure if I should fluff it up more.

6 THE EMERGENCE OF THE PHALLIC GIRLS
The Unique Space of Their Emergence
….
The Atemporality of Manga and Anime
Every form of visual media functions according to its own temporality. In the case of popular culture most of these temporalities are a matter of movements.
All forms of visual expression are marked by a form of movement particular to their medium. Manga, anime, and film each have their own “grammar” of movement. Lining up photographs of real people like frames in a manga, for example, would not produce the same effects as a manga. On the contrary, it would lack reality (riariti), and the only effect it could produce would be of kitsch. This is because the kind of movement specific to the photographic medium clashes with the manga form.
These techniques for expressing movement include everything from the macro-level of speed lines in manga. Used effectively, they produce the effect of realistic movement. Reality (riariti) in anime is produced not by naturalistic backgrounds or by imitating cinematic techniques but only by realizing the kind of movement that is unique to anime. Under these conditions even a character drawn with a single line can seem just as real or even more real than a person in a photograph or a film. Now let us consider the question of temporality in manga and anime while paying attention to how they express movement.
A comparison of the work of Ishinomori Shotaro and Nagai Go is useful in thinking about temporality in manga. Ishinomori and Nagai use very different methods for representing time. Simply put, one uses “cinematic time” and the other “gekiga time.”
As Kato Mikiro has also argued, Ishinomori’s work brought the representation of time in manga to an extremely sophisticated level. His techniques were then adopted as a kind of grammar unique to manga and eventually rendered even more sophisticated in the hands of artists like Otomo Katsuhiro. One can certainly see the influence of film in these techniques (Ishinomori himself was also a great fan of Western films). Even more than someone like Tezuka Osamu, Ishinomori intended his manga to be like films. In contrast to this, Nagai’s techniques are more specific to manga, almost as if he were taking a position against cinema. Because this point is very closely related to the emergence of the beautiful fighting girls, let us look into it in greater detail.
In Ishinomori’s work, time “flows,” as it were, at the mostly consistent speed. It is his well-known techniques for describing intervals in dialogue - for example, the kind of time produced by the contrast between the dialogue within speech bubbles and the handwritten dialogue outside the speech bubbles - that maintain the objectivity or intersubjectivity of time in Ishinomori’s works. It is a more chronological, measured time that flows straight and even, without slowing or faltering.
In Nagai’s work, on the other hand, time no longer flows. It contracts and expands along with the reader’s subjective viewpoint. Action-packed, high-impact moments are drawn with large frames and take up many pages. This way of representing time, hardly used by Ishinomori at all, has become the trademark of Japanese manga in general. Ishinomori’s Masked Rider (Kamen raidaa) and other works in the squadron genre have been more often adapted as live-action dramas than as anime. This is in stark contrast to Nagai’s works, which have almost always been adapted as anime. There are no doubt reasons internal to the industry for this, but that does not explain everything. It seems clear that Nagai’s work itself has a greater affinity for being adapted as anime. And one of the things that anime have adopted from manga is the kind of atemporality represented in Nagai’s work.
In an earlier essay I was critical of this sort of atemporality in the work of Miyazaki Hayao. Here, I would like to return to that earlier essay to reconsider the atemporality of manga and anime.
As Miyazaki himself points out, anime starts out as the stepchild of manga. Anime often borrow techniques directly from manga. The best known example of this is the use of so-called manpu (Takekuma Kentaro) but the atemporality of anime is also derived from manga. Miyazaki compares anime’s atemporality to a traditional Japanese form of storytelling known as kodan storytelling, in which time and space are grossly distorted and exaggerated according to the passion and expressivity of the characters. The kodan “Kan’ei sanbajutsu” (Horse riding in the Kan’ei era), for example, is a long and extremely detailed description of how Magaki Heikuro climbs up a stone staircase on a horse. This kind of unlimited extension of a single privileged moment is typical of the atemporality of kodan storytelling, and Miyazaki is extremely critical of it.
One sees this kind of temporality most often in gekiga comics like those of Kajiwara Ikki. The most extreme example is perhaps Nakajima Norihiro’s Astro kyu dan (Asutoro kyu dan), the climaz of which is a single baseball match between the Astros and the Victories, the description of which took three years in serialization and more than two thousand pages. Astro kyu dan was a groundbreaking work, but it was neither minor nor avant-garde. It was published in Shonen jampu (Jump), a leading manga magazine, and, with the exception of a few raised eyebrows here and there, readers had no trouble accepting it.
The media space of manga and anime clearly tends toward atemporality. Manga about sports inevitably favor these descriptive techniques. The time between the moment the ball leaves the pitcher’s hand to the time it is swallowed up in the catcher’s mitt, the moment when a long-distance runner speeds up just before the finish line, the time of a round of boxing: all of these extremely short periods of time are extended and rendered in elaborate detail. The impact of a particular scene is heightened in direct proportion to the time spend describing it and the density of the narrative. Such techniques have been used most effectively in manga and anime. There is nothing in films or even novels capable of rendering this sense of atemporality quite as naturally. This point may have to do with the particularity of “Japanese space” that I discuss later.
Of course, the imaginaire, the realm of the imagination and fantasy, is atemporal to begin with. Dead people, for example, do not age in this realm. This is very different however, from Sigmund Freud’s notion of the atemporality of the unconscious. The unconscious is atemporal by its very nature, while the Imaginary can accurately be said only to strive for atemporality. In the imagination there is often a striving toward unlimited experience, which leads to a frantic gathering together of privileged moments.

In an essay on schizophrenia, the psychiatrist Nakai Hisao writes about the distinction between chronological and kairological time. Chronological time, named after Chronos, the Greek god of time and the father of Zeus, refers to physical time that we can measure on the clock. Kairos, on the other hand, is the Greek word for “opportune moment” and refers to time as human beings actually experience it. When we feel as if a boring lecture will go on forever or the time spent with a lover is over in a millisecond, it is because we are experiencing the time of kairos. Nakai writers that at a certain point in the progress of schizophrenia, patients experience “the collapse of kairological time and the maintenance of chronological time.” If this is possible, then there is no reason to think that the opposite might not also happen. Chronological time might recede, and the individual might leap headfirst into kairological time. In borderline cases and hysterics, for example, kairological time is clearly dominant. The time experienced by these individuals is often marked by the “here and now” of narcissism.
There are several other ways in which anime and manga strive for atemporality, or the suppression of chronological time. Characters like Sazae-san and Doraemon never grow old, and their stories unfold cyclically , always in the same setting. The technique of the tournament form that anime borrowed from manga magazines like Shonen jampu is another example of an atemporal form, like an infinite musical scale. The way the ranks of the enemy grows infinitely stronger is nothing if not a technique for introducing cyclical atemporality even as it disguises the passage time. In anime there is also the issue of the voice actor. What does it mean that the voice actor seems ageless and immortal? Often we have no idea how old they are in reality, and they may play the same boy roles for years on end. They must be immortal as well: When Yamada Yasuo, who did the voice of Lupin, died, the role was taken over by a virtual vocal clone of Yamada’s named Kurita Kan’ichi.
<…>
Philosophy of Care by Boris Groys (Chapter 10: Under the Gaze of the Charwoman part I)
Philosophy of Care by Boris Groys (Chapter 10: Under the Gaze of the Charwoman part II)
Becoming an Artwork by Boris Groys (Chapter 7)
<…>
American comics are fundamentally loyal to the techniques of cinema . In other words, they use chronological time in every respect. The flow of time from frame to frame is always even, and emotional prolongation and exaggeration is minimized. The characters’ subjective viewpoints are rendered through their monologues, and they do not demand readerly identification any more than necessary. In Japanese manga, on the other hand, particularly since kairological time was introduced by Tezuka, there has been a proliferation of techniques for rendering brief moments with high density and a very light touch. As these techniques were developed and further refined, they forced readers to identify with the characters even as they made it possible for them to read at a very fast pace. There is nothing else like this in the history of representational culture. It is very different from the way short time periods are presented in long novels such as the four days of the Brothers Karamazov or the single day of Joyce’s Ulysses. The high temporal density of these literary works derives from their indexical and polyphonic narrative structures. What they lack, moreover, is speed. The paradoxical combination of high-density and high-speed forms of expression is the unique quality of the media space of manga and anime.
The atemporality of manga derives from the screen effect whereby something looks as if it were stopped because it is moving so fast. Atemporality is not the only effect made possible by this copious description of instantaneous moments. I have pointed out that it also makes speed-reading possible. What does the copious description of instantaneous moments have to do with speed-reading? Here it would be useful to explain one of the most conspicuous codes that characterizes manga and anime.
Synchronic Space in Unison
Manga has its own very particular set of codes. As is well known, manga have multiple means for communicating these codes, both visual and verbal, as well as various supplemental onomatopoetic and mimetic expressions. Its methods of visual expression are far from simple. The background may be drawn in great detail, but the characters must be drawn using symbolic abbreviations. This is necessary to maintain visual continuity for the same characters from frame to frame. The characters’ emotions must also be expressed symbolically. This is the function of so-called manpu. Movement is expressed symbolically using various kinds of “speed lines.” I use the word “symbolic” here to indicate that these expressions directly transmit meanings as simple codes, leaving almost no room for multiple interpretations.
A frame from a manga chosen at random illustrates what I mean in greater detail. It is easy to see that multiple code systems coexist within even a single frame. We may begin by reading the text, but the shape of the bubbles that envelop the text are also expressive of emotions and situations. The manga as a whole consists of a very long list of codes, including the facial expressions of the characters, manpu, onomatopoetic and mimetic expressions, and speed and concentration lines. In manga it is almost impossible for a given mark, ln the paper not to carry any meaning. The brush or pencil strokes and the panel layout, as well as the empty spaces and the abbreviations, all contribute in some way or another to the meaning. The brush or pencil strokes and the panel layout, as well as the empty spaces and the abbreviations, all contribute in some way or another to the meaning. When we stop and think about it, it is quite surprising that we have read such huge quantities of manga without ever being conscious of all of these codes . How is it that a system of codes of this complexity has come to be shared as a common grammar so unconsciously - and accurately? Answering that question alone would make for a fascinating history of representational culture. But for now let us leave that aside and move on.
Some readers may be wondering whether there is really anything unique here about manga and anime. Don’t film and theater have their own complex systems of codes? What is unique about manga and anime is not the layering of codes on top of one another, or even the number of codes in use. What is important is that in manga and anime these codes do not create a polyphonic effect. Instead, they work in unison.
What do I mean by this? Even though multiple layers of codes operate in a manga or an anime, they express the same meaning, or the same emotion. Multiple code systems are synchronized to convey the meaning of a single situation. The more precise and rhythmic this synchronization is, the more rapidly we end up reading them. Speed-reading is an effect of this unison of codes, but at the same time the codes are brought into greater synchronicity by being read quickly.
One more crucial factor is that each of these codes that we have been discussing is highly incomplete on its own. No single manga code can convey meaning by itself. The text of the images alone do not relay sufficient meaning to be read in isolation. This means that all of the code systems must supplement each other. It is only this mutual supplementation that makes possible the synchronization and the unisonic effect of the whole.
For this reason the space of manga functions a representational space that is both excessively overdetermined in meaning and highly redundant. A related phenomenon is the rapid spread of those unsightly so-called telops that have become so irritatingly common on television programs in recent years. The words of the performers on variety shows are repeated for emphasis using subtitles, to which are added (in all likelihood synthesized) recordings of the laughter of the crew. Here also, you have multiple codes working in unison to ensure that the viewer was no way to react but to laugh. Some have pointed to this as an example of television becoming like manga. But I am more interested in considering what it is about our culture that makes us so found of these redundant and exaggerated forms of expression.
According to Frederik Schodt, who has also written about Japanese manga, the Japanese preference for combining visual with verbal expression has its roots in the kibyoshi picture books of the Edo period. Schodt’s thesis will of course require careful study before we can be certain. But at the present moment it does seem to be the case that Japan is the only country in which the fundamental grammar of popular culture can be described as the copious expression of multiple codes in unison. It is not that there are no examples of this in other countries, but nowhere else has it attained the widespread popularity and sophistication that it has in Japan.
This distinctive medium, which becomes meaningless when the codes are separated out and excessively meaningful when they are synchronized, brings to mind something else as well. It is very similar to how the Japanese language itself uses phonetic kana along with Chinese characters. As the anime director Takahata Isao has argued, anime and the Japanese language stand in a very intimate relation to one another. Takahata’s point is the anime is the Japanese language. Of course, there have been claims like this before, such as the one that suggests that manga resemble Japanese calligraphy. Misconceptions about kanji, particularly the idea that they are ideographic, and fascination with the refined look of the characters led even Jacques Lacan into thoughtless remarked that “the Japanese cannot be psychoanalyzed.” [*12. Jacques Lacan, “Avis au lecteur Japonais,” in Le seminaire de Jacques Lacan, ed. J. A. Miller, vol. 11 (Paris: Editions du Seuil), 497-500.] If we accept the distinction between the Symbolic and the Imaginary, we have to recognize that this is wrong. If there is something unique about kanji, it is not that they are closer to symbols than to letter. It is entirely possible to be attached to the visual appearance of writing, to treat it like a fetish, whether it be kanji or alphabetic letters. For the same reason we should avoid facile conflations of the imaginary function of anime and manga with the symbolic one of the Japanese writing system.
My sense is that the uniqueness of the two-pronged kanji/kana writing system employed in Japanese has less to do with its visual qualities than with the fact that reading it is a highly context-dependent process . And it is this fact that helps regulate the emergence of symbolic effects into the Imaginary. What we can say at this point for sure is that neither a Chinese character nor a phonetic reading on its own is sufficient to denote meaning. And it goes without saying that it is only with the addition, in synchronic unison, of katakana and roman letters that the full meaning can be gleaned. It is probably not a coincidence that the code systems of anime and manga work in a similar way.
The ease with which we enter into the world of a manga and the extraordinary speed at which we are able to consume them suggest that we may “read” them in the same way that we read Japanese writing. If this is indeed the case, we might make a further hypothesis about the Japanese writing system. We cannot claim that Japanese writing somehow blurs the boundaries between the Imaginary and the Symbolic. We can argue, however, that it provides us with a sophisticated mechanism for processing imaginary objects using symbolic operational forms.
This hypothesis helps explain a number of stranger phenomena. The first of these is that drawing ability is not the most important factor in assessing Japanese manga artists and anime directors. In fact we are strangely forgiving of their technical skills in drawing. The ability to draw certainly doesn’t hurt, but it is merely an added value. There are any number of Japanese artists who are considered “greats” but whose drawing ability is inexpert when judged by the standards of the West. Even Otomo Katsuhiro, for example, is not valued in the West for his ability to draw. Instead, his international reputation rests on his ability to tell a good story. This tendency to downplay drawing ability is also reflected in the fact that almost all critical writing on manga and anime to date focuses exclusively on narrative and character analysis.
It seems likely that we Japanese inhabit a cultural sphere that has experienced a rather distinctive development of technologies for the symbolic processing of imaginary things. This hypothesis has implications that are not limited to the theory of manga and anime. But because those implications would take us far beyond the scope of this book, we leave them for later and return to the main argument, bearing this hypothesis in mind.
The Space of Multiple Personalities
It should be possible to further expand on and generalize from these notions of the multilayered codes in manga and anime and the way they function in unison. It should be possible, for example, to think of a character in a manga as a kind of code. In my understanding, manga works have a structure that resembles a patient with multiple personalities. The better the work, the more occasions it provides for the multiplication of these personalities. To put it differently, the more perfect the manga, the more completely it succeeds in integrating the totality of its character into a single mutually supplementing system of partly personified characters.
In clinical practice it is well known that the separate personalities of patients with multiple personality disorder are highly incomplete in themselves. It is not uncommon for these individual personalities to be simple types whose entire nature can be expressed with a single phrase. In this sense it might be more appropriate to refer to them not as “personalities” but as individual “specs” (functions). This sort of incompleteness applies to many manga works as well.
It should be clear that what I am opposing to this space of multiple personalities is Mikhail Bakhtin’s notion of polyphony. Here is Bakhtin on the space of polyphony:

• A plurality of independent and unmerged voices and consciousnesses, a genuine polyphony of fully valid voices is in fact the chief characteristic of Dostoevsky’s novels….a plurality of consciousnesses, with equal rights and each with its own world, combine but are not merged in the unity of the event…not only objects of authorial discourse but also subjects of their own directly signifying discourse…. The consciousness of a character is given as someone else’s consciousness, another consciousness, yet at the same time it is not turned into an object, is not closed, does not become a simple object of the author’s consciousness. In this sense the image of a character in Dostoevsky is not the usual objectified image of a hero in the traditional novel….He created a fundamentally new novelistic genre.

The space of manga and anime has virtually nothing to do with these characteristics. In fact that space is more like an even more extreme version of what Bakhtin describes as having come before Dostoevsky. In other words, manga and anime give us “a multitude of characters and fates in a single objective world, illuminated by a single authorial consciousness,” in which “a character’s discourse [can] be exhausted by the usual pragmatic functions of characterization and plot development” and made to “serve as a vehicle for the author’s own ideological position.”
It is a fact that is often misunderstood, but like many other subcultural productions, the degree of freedom of expression in manga genre is extremely low. Compared with the novel, the formal characteristics and the range of narratives and narrative perspectives in manga are much more tightly circumscribed. What manga have instead is a much greater diversity of styles than the novel. This is also typical of most subcultural forms. To put it in semiotic terms, manga are impoverished on the syntagmatic axis (i.e., the horizontal structure) but extremely rich on the paradigmatic axis (i.e., the vertical branch).
For this reason it is not possible for manga to convey narratives above a certain level of complexity. The personalities of characters in manga have to be simple enough to be understood at a glance. If complex personalities cannot be described, complex narratives are not possible. In manga, therefore, the individual personalities of characters are inevitably types. If many manga contain only characters that belong to identifiable types, this is because the characters have to be arranged according to a code in which each one of them carries a single meaning. But this is no reason to complain about the lack of complexity and depth in manga characterization. In manga, a single personality is often divided among multiple characters. In other words, an entire manga work in its entirety is the coordinated expression of a single personality - of, for example, the personality of the author.
If it seems like I am belittling manga and anime by making this argument, this is not my intention. But just to be sure, let me make my defense of them explicit. The characteristics of manga that I have described above are weaknesses in terms of their capacity for literary expression. But do we not live in a time when the authority of the literary has been considerably weakened and the exponents of so-called high culture are being banished to an ever-shrinking territory?
If the weaknesses of subcultural forms like manga fall under the category of what I have just described as the syntagmatic, their strength lies in their paradigmatic diversity. One example would be popular music, where a diversity of sounds and arrangements are applied to simple structures, making for virtually infinite repetition and renewal. These days, techniques like sampling and remixing are not limited to music. We can all remember quite clearly how refreshing and powerful we found the anime series Neon Genesis Evangelion (Shin seiki Evangerion), which was produced almost entirely using these technical refinements. Subcultural forms will surely continue to seduce and bewitch us with their uncompromising superficiality. They may not be able to portray “complex personalities,” but they certainly do produce “fascinating types.” The beautiful fighting girl, of course, is none other than one of those types. That she can only survive in a subcultural habitat is due to the reasons given above.
[To be continued]

The PTE Core Writing section is a crucial component of the Pearson Test of English (PTE) Academic, designed to assess your ability to communicate effectively in written English. This section typically includes tasks such as writing an essay and summarizing written text. Here's what you need to know about each part:

1. Essay Writing: You'll be asked to write a 200-300 word essay on a given topic. This task assesses your ability to organize ideas, develop arguments, and use proper grammar and vocabulary. A good essay should have a clear introduction, body paragraphs, and a conclusion. Focus on providing examples to support your points and ensure your writing is coherent and cohesive.
2. Summarize Written Text: This task requires you to read a passage and summarize it in one sentence of no more than 75 words. It tests your ability to identify main ideas and condense information without losing the essence of the text. Practice paraphrasing and using complex sentence structures to convey the main points succinctly.

Tips for Success:

• Practice Regularly: The more you practice, the better you will become. Use sample prompts and past papers to hone your skills.
• Time Management: Make sure you allocate your time wisely during the test. Spend the first few minutes planning your essay and the rest writing and revising.
• Grammar and Vocabulary: Strong grammar and a wide range of vocabulary are essential. Reading extensively can help improve both.
• Seek Feedback: Use resources like Alfa PTE for practice tests and feedback. Their guidance can help you understand your weaknesses and improve your writing skills effectively.

Remember, consistent practice and familiarizing yourself with the test format are key to doing well in the PTE Core Writing section.

Hi!
It's almost midnight where I live and I just recalled something about my perception that I always perceived as normal, yet it doesn't seem to be according to my girlfriend.
Essentially, when I read a particular piece of writing (no matter what, even mine), I can see the ''style'' of the writer through a continuous line that follows, almost projected into the paper, the words as I read them and morphs according to whatever parameters my brain fixes. Each word has some sort of weight and influences the line, to the point where I struggle to finish essays in college as I try to perfectly resolve the line to its initial height ; if it is not, something is wrong haha! This also applies to rhetorical tools associated with the text like arguments and examples.
So yeah... what is that?

I am not The OOP, OOP is u/Decent_Lecture_1514
I run a DnD group with kids aged 7-11 at my local YMCA, and some parents are trying to get the game outright banned. I have to have a meeting with both parents and HR Department and effectively present my case. Please help!
Originally posted to DnD
Thanks to u/PitaEnigma for suggesting this BoRU
EDITORS NOTE: because it's mentioned and some may not remember or been born when it happened, a quick synopsis of the satanic panic
The Satanic panic is a moral panic consisting of over 12,000 unsubstantiated cases of Satanic ritual abuse (SRA, sometimes known as ritual abuse, ritualistic abuse, organized abuse, or sadistic ritual abuse) starting in the United States in the 1980s, spreading throughout many parts of the world by the late 1990s, and persisting today.
Original Post May 9, 2024
Sorry if this is a longer post, but important context below ⬇️
So yeah I'm a program coordinator at our local YMCA and I run an after-school program (effectively am a glorified babysitter hahaha). This past school year I passively mentioned that I play a lot of DnD when one of the kids asked me if I had any plans that weekend, and it totally piqued their interest when I explained to them what the game was like/about. Naturally they asked if they could try and play and I figured sure why not, I'll write a fun and fam friendly one-shot for them.
They all absolutely loved it. It's turned into a proper campaign with about 7 of the 24 kids me and my coworkers look after consistently playing. I've had to limit the sessions to just 1-2 days of the 5 day school week, because I have other kids too that aren't interested in it, and I obviously still need to give them attention and interaction as well (and as you know DnD can be a very engaged and attention demanding). I thought this was a fair compromise. Days that it's nice outside we are always out running around, being active, playing sports -- but if it's a rainy day, or on our weekly Friday Movie Day, we generally play. It's been such a blast sharing something I love so deeply with kids who I care about so much.
So here comes the issue:
Almost every parent of the core group that plays loves that we are doing this (one even plays weekly and we bonded over it haha), but there is one child whose parents certainly do not; they want their kid just constantly active and engaged and playing sports, not playing "silly make believe", which I guess I get to a degree because this is kinda the MO of the YMCA traditionally; healthy active living.
​
I've explained that most days of the week we do just that, and that this is something we only do on Fridays or rain days when we are stuck inside, but they aren't budging. I think they have a misguided idea of the game and what it is, or maybe they are just fundamentally against it, I'm not sure. I don't think it's to the level of like the era of thought where media and the masses thought DnD was some kind of satanic game, but I feel like there could certainly be a bit of that.
​
Anyway they want it to stop immediately. I've told them I'm not forcing anyone to play, and that if they really feel that way they are within their rights to tell their child they don't want him playing, but they are trying to take it a step farther and get it banned. ALSO I would feel horrible if this child were forbade from playing while all his friends have a blast doing so. Just doesn't seem right.
I understand that it's a game that can involve more mature themes and gameplay, and probably isn't reeeeeeeeally for super young folk, but I feel the way I'm running it mitigates this for the most part: there's no PVP (so no bullying can happen), I'm dealing with waaaaaay less serious themes and stakes, and I don't even include any circumstances where they fight any other humanoids -- strictly just heroes fighting big bad monsters and saving towns. You know the drill.
So yeah long story short(ish) the parents of the one child have called a meeting with HR to discuss the playing of this game at the YMCA. I have it on Sunday. I'm confident I'm gonna have to effectively state my case and explain why I think this is not only an okay thing to be doing, but actually in fact a good thing. I don't know if I'll be able to fully sway them if their mind is already made up, all I can do is just speak my truth haha.
I do whole-heartedly think this game can be super beneficial for young folk. I'll spare you my long form thoughts, but between the teamwork and communication required and rewarded, the problem solving (both ethically and logically and mathematically), AND the improvisation emphasized, I think it stimulates a young mind very well. Lets them escape their own world for a bit and take agency and feel they have control, something young people so desperately desire.
So in conclusion, I'm kinda just writing this to get it off of my chest and vent, BUT I guess my questions would be:
​

• do you have any advice on how to properly communicate my points on why this game can be beneficial for young minds?

​

• Do you know of any other benefits I'm missing?

​

• have you ever had experiences similar to this?

Or maybe you disagree with me and think I'm out of line here, which is totally fair too. Just looking to start some dialogue.
RELEVANT COMMENTS
Thackebr

I know it is a hassle, but if you get to keep Dnd, you might want to start requiring permission slips. That way, you could avoid this in the future.

The_Law_Of_Pizza

This will make it less likely for the OP to get a surprise angry parent, but I don't like the precedent of demanding permission slips for a mundane board game.
It sets up an expectation that D&D is different in some way, and gives ammunition to these weirdos who are still trapped in the Satanic Panic - it lets them point to the permission slips and say, "Look, even your own policies admit that this is something to be hidden behind barriers and parental approval."
At a certain point we have to stand up to these people in society and tell them that they're being ridiculous and that we won't concede to their demands under any circumstances. That takes a great deal of backbone by the YMCA administration, though.

~
probloodmagic

Geez. Really putting the "C" in YMCA. I imagine looking into how people fought back during the "Satanic Panic" might provide some good advice for this.

u/efrique had a great comment about handling a new round of the satanic panic
Here
Many offered sites that share good info about why DnD is helpful and beneficial to kids
thatdanglion

You can point the leadership and parents to the numerous studies showing the many ways playing D&D is beneficial for kids, too. One, for example.

g3rmb0y

I just looked through this thread, there's a ton of great stuff here.
Some additional good orgs that talk about the therapy side are: https://gametogrow.org/ https://geektherapeutics.com/ https://rollforkindness.com/ (That's me) https://www.thebodhanagroup.org/

dgendbreau

D&D has also been shown to be useful in teaching kids about social skills, creative writing, theory of mind, mental math, team work, problem solving etc.
https://dnd.wizards.com/resources/educators

Update May 13, 2024
Made a post a few days ago about how I run a DnD campaign for some kids in an after-school program I run for the YMCA, and subsequently how the parents of one of the kids was trying to get the game banned and whole operation shut down. I wasn't sure the best way to make an update, but I linked the whole original post above so you can have a read if you'd like ^
So firstly genuine genuine genuine big thanks to everyone who took the time to read and respond with input and suggestions. It means a ton and really helped a lot. So I'm just gonna jump right in with what happened.
Firstly, I took the advice about getting testimonies from parents who were super happy that I was playing this game with their kids -- we weren't allowed to have outside visitors involved in the actual meeting with HR, but I got emails and messages from mostly every parent (besides the one complaining about it lmao) to voice their support and why they think this is not a harmful thing, and in fact actually a good thing. I really think this helped a lot and was a big factor, so thanks everyone who suggested. It's not something I would've thought to do on my own ahahah.
I didn't want to come in toooooo heavy with the articles and very clear scientific proof about the benefits of developing minds playing TTRPGs', because (as it turned out) this was actually more just conversational and "pleasant" than I thought it was gonna be, at least from HRs side. I did mention to them the multiple studies done on this exact scenario, but it turned out I didn't even really need them. There were definitely moments of tension, but this was a more civil conversation than I anticipated from all parties involved. I'm not sure if it was the fact that the parents who complained had to talk to me in person WITH my bosses and HR reps present and it calmed them down a bit? But yeah anyway.
I wish it was a more dramatic story, but basically I just levelled with them person to person.
People who said they were betting on it being a Christian, satanic-panic angle: you were right, mostly anyway. As in, that was definitely a main part of their argument. They are in fact Christian and were concerned, but it was really coming from a place of ignorance about what this game is about, and they specifically didn't understand the fact that the DM (me) can entirely control what the contents of it is. I'm assuming they just googled DnD and probably saw some things they didn't agree with, but once I explained that the way we were playing it included no demon spawn or worshipping, or any killing of other humans, or allowing of murder-hobo activity, they softened up a bit. I told them it's a strictly G/PG rated experience that I'm curating for them. And of course I explained the social and academic benefits of DnD, and how much of a bonding activity this is for the group, and how much their son in particular loves it. This helped big time.
Ironically, it was their other argument about wanting active engagement for their child (ie; sports lol) that was a little harder to combat. From their and HRs perspective, this whole program and the YMCAs MO IS in fact healthy active engagement. I explained that most days of the week we are doing just that. I'm a tennis instructor as well and have played sports all my life (and they know this), so I tried to assure them that I get their child a SOLID amount of engagement (plus free tennis lessons effectively haha). I'll save you the whole back and forth, but this was a majority of our 45 minute meeting.
Im trying to wrap this up with a bow but not sure exactly how, so I'll just finish with the bullet points from the end of the discussion:
• The game is not banned! HOORAY HOORAY!
• I am now only allowed to play it with them once a week (on Friday), but all things considered I'll take this as a win!
• and best of all, the complained parents are letting their kid continue to play!!!! I'm sending them a detailed summary of the contents of my game so they can look it over, but they said with it now "officially" only being once a week, and with a better understanding of what it actually is, they will let him to continue to play. I'm so unbelievably happy.
So boom. Happy ending. Again big thanks to everyone for giving their advice and linking resources; it helped so much and meant a lot. This is a big win for "the community" I feel, at the risk of sounding too corny. You are all the best. I love this game so much 🥹
RELEVANT COMMENTS
OOP explains how they made DnD G/PG rated

So the method I've taken is that this is mainly an explorative and mystery solving campaign. There is combat occasionally, but it's heeeeeavy on the RP aspect of these aforementioned things (aka 7 kids screaming over each other lmao)
I briefly mentioned in the previous post that when I do involve combat I don't include any that js player versus any humanoids -- so no "killing" of bandits or raiders or pirates or anything resembling, it's strictly taking out big bad monsters, or a big spidebats/owlbear or whatever when it does happen. This takes a big amount of the potential nastiness out: Timmy cant go home saying "Mom I killed 4 dudes today!", regardless if he understands the deeply political and socio-economic rooted reasons why it may be justified he did that 🙄 hahahah.
So yeah eliminated that entirely, strayed away from words like "kill" or "dead" or certainly "murdered", and have a very very "heroes save the town from mishaps" type adventure. For a quick example our last plot hook/beat (which ended up taking up like 3 Fridays because of how long it can take with young kids hahaha) involved them stumbling into a town and discovering that it holds the map to an ancient treasure that is rumoured to be buried in a magical woods nearby. Maaaaaany puzzles and skill checks later they found it deep in the woods by a magic tree and had to answer (very basic) riddles from the speaking and living tree in order to get access to it. They succeeded and absolutely loved it and there was no combat at all.

THIS IS A REPOST SUB - I AM NOT THE OOP
DO NOT CONTACT THE OOP's OR COMMENT ON LINKED POSTS, REMEMBER - RULE 7

First Previous Wiki
Ascendant Denali swept his tail across the floor. "Greetings. The New Ascendancy welcomes you and your kin, Diplomat Sommi."
The Misan creature did its equivalent of a bow, honoring him in his palace as was proper. He had been starved of respect from his surrounding powers lately and would feast upon this memory like a fine cut.
"The Misan Li Heptarchies receive your warm greetings, Ascendant Denali. We offer official congratulations on your ascent to the Trikkec throne, and the continued unification of your people. We are glad that you are regaining your prosperity, and offer additional aid to that end."
It was the perfect language of the High Dialect, with almost no imperfections on the translator's part. An expertly trained device, for sure, given the vast cavern between their respective languages. He had a translator as well working to ensure that the Diplomat heard his words correctly, and that he would know how their language distorted them to prevent any unfortunate misunderstandings.
Such things could be disastrous with certain civilizations, and Denali saw no need to make true enemies. He was strong enough to project power inside the New Ascendancy but nowhere near so outside of it. Pirates and raiders still festered upon the upper borders, and the lower borders were contested by a few minor lords who had survived the collapse of the Ascendancy. He was currently bombarding their planetary shields with asteroids and lasers.
"Aid of what sort, and with what stipulations?" Denali asked, waving an economic advisor over with a stray claw.
"Military and economic."
"Stipulations?"
"You close all business with the Alliance."
"Ah."
Denali stepped off his throne. "Diplomat, I can assume you know how valuable that relationship is to the Ascendancy? I assume you already have a plan to replace them with something better. If your plan is ready, I will have my advisors review it. If not, no further discussions are to take place."
"Do you accept their power over you, Ascendant?"
"In this galaxy, it does not matter what we accept. If a Sprilnav comes barging into your house and takes your mate in front of you, there is nothing you can do. If one of the Core Powers manages to reach us, they can do the same. There are the laws of nations, and there are those of power. The Alliance's aid, even as its darker purposes twist it, has saved millions of lives. Children eating. Families working. They have the might of two AIs behind them."
"They are far too young of a nation for you to realistically believe their abilities are this high."
"Many have made that mistake," Denali said. "They are an older nation than mine, certainly. Would you say that my nation's abilities are lower?"
"I would not."
"Then you tell lies. I am not some foolish monarch who cannot see the reality in front of him. The Alliance's aid is a tool to keep me leashed like some common lizard. But it comes with economic growth and power that fuels the New Ascendancy further. I do not believe I will overtake their growth even when the entire species is reunited. And since your borders are further away than theirs, you will have added economic costs to any aid you give, with little gain on your end."
"They influence your culture. Your people."
"They do," Denali agreed. "You are a powerful nation as well. You would do the same with your own aid, yes? And you would call for us to destroy our traditions, our religions, and our very culture. We have seen your attempts at negotation with other powers nearer to you. You are an aspiring hegemon. But the Alliance's hegemony is already established. The Grand Defense Organization is something that I might even join, when I have the military might to meet their threshold."
"Why?"
"Because when power rises, others can latch on," Denali said. "Your offer, please. I am quite interested to hear it."
The Diplomat gave him a tablet. Denali brought it up with a hologram isolated from the network. His eyes began to shine.
"You should have led with this, Diplomat."
"Ah, but I needed to see the esteemed Ascendant's viewpoint on us. It is a shame that you must bow and scrape to the Alliance. How would you like to meet them on the field of battle?"
Denali chuckled. "I would like it very much, were they a normal nation. But they are taking planet crackers from King Siran and hauling them back to their space. They have a few of their own, not just stolen from the Wisselen."
"And they are pacifist."
"But not weak, Diplomat. All that means is they will not start the fight. But as we stand now, they will finish it. And a transfer of this many ships likely comes with enormous drawbacks and conditions."
"Then let us discuss those conditions, Ascendant. I am sure something more sufficient to your tastes can be selected."
"I am glad to hear that." Denali made a table hologram that was complete with hard light compatibility. Seating for the Misan, his guards, and Denali and his guards also appeared. The table was transparent.
"I will present my documents on this, and we can discuss in greater detail how you can divest from the Alliance without significant economic damage. There are certain facets we have identified which are key to your growth: military might, industrial capacity, and social cohesion."
Denali rubbed his teeth with his claws. Several cooks came in, bringing him food. The Misan Diplomat and his entourage refused, which was expected given the vast differences in their palettes.
"Those are indeed key parts of the Alliance's aid. Do you have an answer for me which is cheaper than the exports of the Alliance?"
"Yes. We can deliver 250 billion androids capable of continuous work for 20 years, each with a 96% likelihood of continued operation at the end of this period. We are willing to deliver these for you at once, though we would only request an escort of your ships alongside our own for added diplomatic security."
"A veritable army," Denali said.
"None of which will carry or operate weapons."
"We would need to verify that before shipping," Denali said. "As we would need to do for the price. The Alliance demands 1% of our current discretionary yearly foreign trade budget. How does your offer compare?"
"We would ask for a 30 year non-aggression agreement, and diplomatic outposts in your territory, as well as a possible defense pact, where we can defend you legally and militarily against Alliance encroachment."
"A large offer," Denali said. "Tell me, what is in it for you?"
"The Heptarchies wish to curtail the Alliance's growing influence by any means necessary, even if it means spending large amounts of money in the process. Having a monetary outflow is something the Heptarchies are happy to entertain, and we would be grateful for you to join us in this endeavor."
"And what of the risk of me playing both sides?"
"We can offer you high enough boons to ensure that does not occur."
So a bribe, then. A massive one. It was already enticing, but Denali sensed he could get more with better negotiations.
"You mentioned social cohesion and military might as well," Denali said. "Can you explain what you mean by this, and what aid you will send to address this?"
Now, the Diplomat looked more uncertain. It was an act, though a fairly convincing one. The pause lengthened.
"Ascendant Denali, surely you understand..."
"I understand you said 'any means necessary' for curtailing the Alliance. With an AI in their nation, such a thing will be expensive, yes? I'm sure that I need not remind you I will choose what is best for my nation overall. And if you cannot come through... I can always notify them of this offer to explore their ability to match it. Or, gods forbid, even exceed it."
"The trade agreement cannot encompass-"
"Then we have nothing more to discuss, Diplomat."
"Wait! Fine, we can discuss it! Just let us work out the new conditions. They're favorable to you, Ascendant. The Heptarchies value you as a potential customer-"
"I'm sure you do. You have four days to present an offer I appreciate more," Denali said, shoving the tablet back at the Diplomat. "Would you like me to procure food capable of Misan consumption?"
"That would be kind of you, Ascendant. We will accept that. And we will begin drafting a more suitable deal for both of our nations."
"Good!" Denali grinned, settling upon his chair with a new sense of pride in his posture.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Elder Pundacrawla settled his robe about his shoulders as he waited outside the room. In his implant, a small countdown reached zero. The silver doors slid open, and his eyes feasted on the room. It was quite ornate, but what really set it apart was the scene in the center. Elder Kashaunta sat on a short chair across a small table from the object of the entire star system's latest obsessions.
The bipedal alien sat in her own chair, which had an odd raised section to support her back. Her clothing was somewhat simple, with black and grey fabric covering her upper torso. He could tell the fabric was high quality—in fact, it was infused with psychic energy.
Her odd face looked a little smushed, and there was a faint red color to her pale skin and two bars of psychic energy thicker than he'd ever seen adorning her cheeks. She appeared unassuming, but her eyes latched onto him with an entrancing glare.
Her scrutiny waved over him, making Pundacrawla smile. Her gray hair fluttered, with a ring of fabric collecting it behind her head to rest on her back. Her fingers were short, without claws of any appreciable size. Her feet were hidden entirely by shoes; he could sense a thick armor.
In the mindscape, she roiled with collected psychic energy, like a promise of action for any slight. Her mind almost looked to have three minds in one, and iron bands of psychic energy encircled it from all sides, even above and below, preventing any quick avenue of mental attack. All in all, she was like an alien Elder when the conceptual energy came into account. She reminded Pundacrawla of an old friend, a secret he kept with Kashaunta that initially had been her leverage over him.
"It is an honor to meet you," Penny said. "You look as impressive as Kashaunta said."
There was no accent. The words flowed from her mouth smoothly, and Kashaunta showed no reaction to the omission of her title. That alone spoke volumes, and Pundacrawla knew he would be showing Penny more respect than most had the privilege to receive.
"I am happy to meet you as well, Penny Balica. Your accomplishments follow your name, and you are also quite impressive."
He settled on a third chair that appeared in front of him. He took a deep breath, his eyes falling on the pair of them.
"Elder Kashaunta has hired me to serve as your lawyer in the Judgment trial," Pundacrawla said. "This requires a great deal of risk to be taken on my part, which has also required that I received advancements."
He drew the word out, causing Penny to raise an eyebrow.
"Advancements?"
"Yes. I would like you to push the Soul Blade toward my left front leg."
Penny drew the sword, her fingers wrapping around the hilt easily. A grip of psychic energy materialized on her hands, and she carefully pressed the tip of it into the place he'd marked.
His skin was pierced. Penny frowned as her weapon went no further. Black blood spilled from the wound, which closed within moments.
"What?"
"These are Type 3 nanites," Pundacrawla said. Black limbs materialized on his back, a second set of arms. And then a third set. They withdrew quickly.
"They also happen to cost a considerable amount of money," Kashaunta said. "Which I have paid, thanks to the added funds your singularities have brought."
"I will tell you not to worry if I am killed in the courtroom. I already have a deal in place with the Collective to ensure, at considerable costs, that I will still survive in some form."
"And killing Pundacrawla is also a declaration of war on the Peoples' Autonomous Stars," Kashaunta added. "You do not stand alone."
"Indeed, I do not," Pundacrawla smiled. He bowed his head toward Penny. "If I may, I would like to start the discussion around the argument for this case."
His implant connected to several devices on his body, manifesting many holographic articles and stories around the room. Penny's 'Liberator' title was printed on half of them in the headline. In others, images and even videos of her in various situations took precedence.
Pundacrawla pulled up an image of Penny kneeling in the rubble of Justicar, holding a dead child. "This is the argument I will make for you."
Penny nodded, her silence confirming that this was the right decision.
"You will be the alien who came to a world named after the concept of justice, and an Elder who bears the same name. I will show how you care for many Sprilnav in your life, and also that you have little motivation to do so purely for the Judgment. I will show you as a loving daughter to a doting father, as a willing partner of Elder Kashaunta, bearer of the Pact of Blades, and as a woman capable of acting with wisdom and grace beyond her years to work with an enemy to sign a truce contract.
I will paint you in as sympathetic a light as possible and will eventually call you as a witness several times. You will need to swear upon your life that you are not lying, and Indrafabar and Justicar will both be capable of detecting your lies, total or partial. If you want to win this case, you will follow my advice without hesitation and without question. Do you understand?"
"I do, Lawyer Pundacrawla."
"You may call me High Lawyer Pundacrawla, or Elder Pundacrawla. With an Eonic degree, I am deserving of this title, and it will remind them of who backs you and who I am."
"I understand."
Pundacrawla took a long moment to organize his thoughts. He removed unnecessary jargon that might be untranslatable. He had the VI program rephrase and dumb down the explanations he needed to say so they would be shorter and easier to understand. Understanding was critical for the early phases of any case, and the client always needed to be ready for what came.
That was Rule 53.
"Now for the second half of the Judgment. The Alliance. They have published a great deal of rhetoric condemning the Sprilnav and the Elders. Yasihaut will first attempt slander using the usual methods. Your species, your barbarity, your lack of being Elders. She will find images of people on social media platforms calling for the deaths of the Sprilnav en mass.
If she desires, she will flood them with this, as the Alliance's population allows for many instances to be located. She may call to past Elders' deaths or to the previous battles with herself and Kashaunta in the earlier history of your nation. But the most likely platform she will use to pose the Alliance as a threat will be the presence of Phoebe, Edu'frec, Brey, and the hivemind of Humanity. The reasons for this are many. I will list several now, with ideal ways to counter them also attached.
Given Yasihaut's personality, she feels that you and the Alliance's continual success is a direct and constant threat to her reputation as an Elder. When you first shamed her, this is what ignited her hatred. Kashaunta has regaled you more on what reputation means to us immortals, but it is a severe concern. Do not underestimate her willingness to regain her reputation and to do so by attempting to defeat you in a public matter.
Here, your physical advantages will be nullified. If you speak out of turn or show signs of resistance, they will be twisted against you and the Alliance. The next reason is that your specific rivalry is personal. It is unique, and the High Judges know this. You are a threat to her, and everyone in that court knows you mean to kill her when the Judgment ends. Do not express your wishes to do this because she may present your threat to her as one to Elders overall. Now, for the Alliance, the fear of AI, unregulated, intelligent, and improving, as Phoebe and Edu'frec both qualify as, is ancient and potent among the Elders.
Across all of history, rogue AI presents the largest threat to our rule, making weapons capable of disabling our ships with merely thousands of years of time to advance. The Alliance has been given leniency on this. But most importantly is the Path. For an AI, approaching technological singularity is a threat to all other beings in existence by the sheer possibilities that it provides. Yasihaut knows this, as do the High Judges. I will aim to prove that Phoebe and Edu'frec do not intend to kill the Elders or go to war with them when they reach singularity.
But this, Penny, will require that Phoebe comes to the stand herself and swears before the court. The Collective will be connected to her and will be capable of detecting the lies in all forms she attempts to tell. This is likely the only way to defeat the arguments Yasihaut presents in that manner. While Phoebe is not allowed to represent you as a lawyer, she is still allowed to be a witness, presumably for exactly this reason. The Collective will also use this as a means to determine Phoebe's progress in weaponry, so I suggest she finds a way to hide those memories well. The next reason Yasihaut will involve the Alliance is because it is visibly divided.
Your leaders bicker and argue, and she will attempt to use this to show you as an unstable power with dangerous ambition. She will use the clashes between your leaders as a way to convince the High Judges that you cannot be trusted, as your lifespans are too short and your minds too alien to remain trustworthy and united in their support of any sort of treaty. She will likely use this to bypass the reality of your truce with Valisada, which the Alliance is not a direct party to. She will discuss the specific threat of Brey in the Alliance. Her ability to use portals makes your nation over fifty times as productive as it would otherwise be.
This makes you an economic threat, coupled with Phoebe. Brey has a historical hatred of the Sprilnav, which also motivates possible military attacks against us. She is also being directly strengthened by the Alliance's psychic amplifiers. I will attempt to stave off this argument by downplaying the threat Brey poses and showing the reality that a Progenitor could kill her instantly.
I am not expecting any specific arguments in this scenario to be effective against the High Judges. This will be a difficult point if Yasihaut exploits it properly. As for the hivemind of Humanity, your threat comes in multiple forms. Firstly, we can confirm you share some power with the hivemind. So if you grow strong, it too will grow strong, and it bends to the will of Humanity as a whole. Polls show that you all, to put it lightly, hate us.
The hivemind also has a direct diplomatic link to the Source and easy access to it via the Servant in the hivemind's city and the city's location itself amidst the Source's bones. Remember that many of us still call the Source the Great Enemy and the Servants the Enemy. Yasihaut will likely attempt to use Rimiaha's presence here to link you as well to the image of the Source, if not the hivemind. If she does this successfully, you will lose the case.
The hatred we have for the Servants is almost bottomless and is only exceeded by that of the Source. Kashaunta has told me that there have been over 30 thousand attempts to kill Rimiaha since he got here, most psychic in nature. All of them have failed due to the intervention of either Justicar, Kashaunta herself, or Rimiaha using his psychic energy to blend in with Sprilnav. Behind the scenes, Kashaunta has destroyed entire mercenary companies in the Underground for this and made deals with Justicar to suppress any mention of this to avoid stirring the fires of war. I will do whatever I can to distance you from Rimiaha.
But if this fails, you must call him to the stand. Make him testify of his lack of willingness to attack the Sprilnav. Indrafabar may request that his mind be invaded to determine the truth about this. If the Source intervenes in that case or Rimiaha refuses, you will also lose the trial. This is the most dangerous idea that Yasihaut could bring against you, which links back to Humanity and you, Penny.
Another reason she has is that if she can push the Judges enough on the Alliance to either level more restrictions or kill the AIs, you will be crippled beyond recovery and will fade into nothingness for her to kill at her leisure. In short, most of this trial hinges on circumstances and testimonies given by witnesses. This is another reason Indrafabar is on the case. He can detect lies in almost any being if he uses his power. And if you resist, which you might be capable of, but..."
"I lose."
"Exactly. This is not a place of honor. This is not a court like before. Arguments will be heard, debated, and either accepted and recorded or discarded and ignored. I will do my best to use Justicar's law principles like recency to your favor, but history is littered with petty Judges making decisions on cases related to how much a threat people are. Not to this level, of course, but there is luckily precendent to lean on in both types of outcomes."
"Pundacrawla, I thank you for your high-level overview. Shall I assume the legal jargon was left out of your description?"
"Yes," he said. "I was uncertain if some words would translate."
"What are my realistic chances for winning this trial?"
Pundacrawla sighed. He didn't want to see her hope shatter, but he refused to lie. Kashaunta seemed fine with him sitting here and talking about things truthfully. If she wasn't, she would have requested a different lawyer.
"In the worst case scenario, which is Indrafabar and Justicar dislike you, and Yasihaut has a lawyer with an Eonic degree of their own, then I would say about 9%."
"That is quite high, actually, for a worst case scenario."
"That is only because this is a Trial by Majority, Kashaunta's backing and all that implies, your friendships with Nilnacrawla, Spentha and Equisa's continued survival within the Alliance, the various political motivations the Judges might have, the fact that you have built up your image, that you have refrained from killing your enemies recently, and the extreme nature of Yasihaut's hatred for you.
Your attack on Tassidonia's court normally would have been the death knell for you. But since your power didn't kill anyone and specifically was weakened to avoid that, it has been a boon more than a curse. And the Sprilnav with bleeding hearts also are pleased with your war on slavery. You will lose that war without Kashuanta's help, but your determination on that is seen as an endearing characteristic."
"Endearing?"
"The Elders think of you as a child, Penny," Kashaunta said. "Your fight against slavery is seen as a childish fantasy, but in a good way. If you wish, Pundacrawla can lean into either your maturity or immaturity on this case. Both may achieve the desired effect, if done right."
"I am not sure about that. Who will watch this trial, and how many?"
"Cast away your ego, Penny, it will not serve you here," Pundacrawla said.
"I'm 76 years old. I can handle this."
"I don't think-"
"200 quintillion," Kashaunta blurted out. Penny flinched.
"What?"
"That is the number of watchers on the channels that have reserved timeslots for the trial among Sprilnav territory."
"And... Elders?"
"35 million, likely including all the Elders with names of any note," Kashaunta said. Pundacrawla gave a worried look to Penny. But the human just took a deep breath and nodded.
"Thank you for telling me. That is manageable."
"You're quite composed about this," Pundacrawla noted.
"I can conceptualize the enormity of that, but also this is a pretty big deal. And if I prove that I am fighting for the common people, it will achieve-"
"Nothing," Kashaunta said. "They cannot rebel on a large enough scale to risk toppling the Elders. If there is one aspect of our system that has survived the rot of a billion years of decay, it is the ability to divide and conquer. This is not an opportunity to get a manifesto out. I warn you against treating it as such."
At first, Penny looked wary of accepting the Elder's advice. She seemed to contemplate that matter, though she was really talking with her adoptive father. But instead of arguing, she simply smiled.
"I understand, Kashaunta. Thank you. I was getting a little sidetracked. All that matters is winning."
"So is there anything I can do to increase my chances?" Penny asked Pundacrawla.
"Outreach. Keep fighting the slavers, and maybe do a few interviews. Make sure to express a lack of hostility toward the Sprilnav people. And be wary of the gangs. When you are in the trial, they may seek revenge upon the freed slaves, or upon you yourself. I would not be surprised if they did their best to conduct false flag attacks under your name. In high-profile trials like this with many enemies, that risk is high. The gangs have high numbers of personnel and a motivation to see you lose this trial before you destroy them."
"I see. Thank you, High Lawyer Pundacrawla," Penny said, lowering her head in an approximation of a bow. Kashaunta nodded but didn't say anything. Penny took another breath in, and Pundacrawla could feel the air currents entering her nostrils.
"Can you explain exactly how a Trial by Majority would work versus the previous sort of Judgment?"
"Previously, the Judges, led by a High Judge, had to agree on a verdict. In that case, they failed. This structure is more flexible, however. All the Judges on the court, or the High Judges in this case, may voice their opinions behind closed doors and attempt to come to a verdict. They will emerge when the agreed-upon time period has passed, and their decisions will be made public.
If one Judge disagrees, there will not be a mistrial. Instead, the verdict with the most Judges behind it, ideally the majority opinion, will be the one chosen. This Judgement will have 20 High Judges. The final verdict, if none can reach the required 11 Judges to pass, will simply be held once all remaining evidence is heard or discarded."
"Held?"
"The High Judges will be required to resolve the dispute. If there are three or more options, the one or multiple with the fewest High Judges backing it will be discarded, until a runoff occurs. The result will then determine the verdict given."
"Can I be acquitted of the charges if that is the majority opinion?"
"Yes, you can. So can the Alliance. The structure of this Judgment is such that Indrafabar and Justicar will counterbalance each other."
"Can't Indrafabar just offer them money to do what he wants?"
"If he wants to lose his licence, severely harm his reputation, and destroy the careers of the High Judges being bribed, sure. While obviously Justicar will not have the power to truly punish him, the consequences would be severe, to say nothing of the other Progenitors. Given the factions present within them, it would be quite unwise for him to influence the case in such a manner. That influence would not be accepted by all."
"What if Yasihaut makes them an offer they can't refuse, or tries to make it look like Kashaunta did to get me in trouble?"
"I have taken steps to prevent that second outcome," Kashaunta said. "As for the first, my spies within Yasihaut's groups will alert me of it, and Justicar will know."
"But if he is a High Judge, wouldn't that be a conflict of interest?"
"His institutions function properly even without his intervention," Kashaunta replied. "There is little risk of that on his part."
"Hmm. Kashaunta, should I hide the Pact of Blades until the trial?"
"Yes. Its shock value will be maximum at that point."
"Elder Pundacrawla, are the rules on decorum the same as before?"
"Yes, but this time there will be proper enforcement. With the galaxy's eyes on him, Justicar will have no choice but to be firm in this trial. He will not be lenient to either of you, and might punish you more for infractions given that you are not a Sprilnav. It is unfair, but it is in his best interest to please the Elders who will be viewing this trial."
"Kashaunta, is there a way I can help you with the politics around this trial?" Penny asked. "I know if the event is this big, there is a lot for you to do, either to gain or to lose."
"A thoughtful offer. I might require one more linear singularity, and to finally get a piece of that negative energy you promised me. If you could tune your rhetoric toward peace with the Elders, it would help my position massively. The Alliance has already started scrubbing anti-Sprilnav rhetoric from its networks after I discussed the damage they could do, so what remains is your opinions. After the Judgment, more eyes will be on you than before. Declare your continued anti-slavery position, and I will have an easier time helping you with less damage to my reputation due to the revealed Pact of Blades."
"Do you also have an entourage of Elders to back you through thick and thin?" Penny asked. Pundacrawla smiled, glad that she was concerned about helping Elder Kashaunta.
She didn't know it, but now Pundacrawla was fully resolved to help her case. He'd been properly convinced that she really did care for her friends. In this case, while she likely was conflicted about it, Kashaunta was her friend. Given the Pact of Blades was in place between them, they were lifelong friends, close enough to be effectively married.
The political meaning of the Pact was certainly closer to that side of it since its most common use was to unify powerful Elder families. Kashaunta didn't have a family name, but that was because her name already carried so much weight everyone knew who was related to her. Pundacrawla gave Kashaunta a list of additional actions Phoebe needed to take using his implant. Kashaunta's eyes sparkled with recognition, though Penny didn't seem to notice.
"I do," Kashaunta said. "They all work for me. Most of them I acquired through either mud diving or through owed favors, though."
"Mud diving?" Penny asked.
"It is a term for doing one's utmost to please a superior for personal benefit, even if the 'please' section is derived from an unfortunate root meaning."
"I see. Elder Pundacrawla, can you get me something I can use for personal communication to you and Kashaunta, like an implant but less invasive?"
"Yes, I can do that," he responded.
"And also, one more thing before we go. Displace."
Penny appeared right in front of him, crouching down so her eyes aligned perfectly with his. They crackled with psychic energy, but beneath them lay a guarded desperation that he recognized from many of his more unfortunate past clients.
"I will not threaten you right now. But I need you to understand what is at stake for me. My friends. My family. My species. My nation. Over 200 billion living, breathing souls with lives and dreams they struggle every day to inch closer to. My titles, Champion of Humanity and Liberator, do not describe what I am but who I am. My world, my people. My home. Everything I have ever known and everything I have ever loved is at stake. Maybe you know what that is like. Maybe you don't.
Either way, please, I beg you to do your best to save us. I'm relying on you to be my hero, Pundacrawla. You can do this, and you must, or I will die for nothing. You will live with the consequences of this Judgment for the rest of your life. I hope you are everything Kashaunta claims you to be and more.
Hundreds of billions of people are counting on you. Look me in the eyes, Pundacrawla. Take in my alien face and my alien features. Know the creature standing here, and tell her you will do everything you can to save her and her people. And if it comes down to choosing to save me or the Alliance, save the Alliance."
Pundacrawla let out a breath. The hot air flowed across Penny's face, moving alien hair strands to the side. He looked into her eyes, peering into the reflection of three beings inside of her.
"Penny Balica. Champion of Humanity. Liberator. Human. I, Pundacrawla, High Lawyer, Elder, and Sprilnav, promise you, with all of my heart, all of my mind, and all of my soul, that I will do my best to win this Judgment for you and your kin. My actions will speak even louder than my words to you."

Hi- need serious advice. I know this is a novel, I’m so sorry but I would appreciate anyone who reads it. I’m a 20 yr old F and I live with my brother, 19 M, and my two parents. My parents are abusive. There is no way to get around it. Physically when I was young and mentally now. I can’t describe what they put me through now- it’s awful. I promised myself all throughout high school I would leave the moment I turned 18 but something kind of switched and they became more tolerable, almost nicer, so like a fucking idiot I stayed. I started my bachelors, started working and tried to convince myself it was alright. The other reason I stayed was for my brother. I’ve taken care of him my whole life. I didn’t have any other choice, and I didn’t think I wanted one. It was my duty to take care of him and I did my job as best as I could only being 11 months older. I have gotten in the middle of fights, taken beatings, punishments, paid for him, drove him, etc. Time and money I didn’t have to spare spent on him with no repayment, and I’m talking about he wanted a new $60 game so I asked him to help me while I cleaned my room (vacuuming, taking down dirty clothes, wiping down my fan). This has been going on for years. I was the one to complete his college essay, to call his advisors to get his transcripts, to do his homework, otherwise my ass was on the line with my parents. I have done everything I could for him. Plus, he didn’t even get into college because I told him he had to complete his 200 word prompt for his college application, leading him not to get accepted because he didn’t fucking do it. He’s in his first year while I’m almost in my fourth. I have had jobs for the last 3 years in my field while he has done nothing. I begged my parents for a car and drivers license for 2 1/2 years while he, at 19, only got his 4 months ago. He does the bare minimum. Less than that, actually. The night before fall semester started he got into a fight with my father, physically, left the house, and made me go looking for him and try to convince him to go back home until 5am. To say my semester was fucked after that is an understatement. It’s constant but I stay because I’m his sister. It’s my job. It’s also a cultural thing I guess. I know I’m venting but I’m getting to the point I promise. A month ago I asked him to help me clean my room so that I could study since he has a habit of fucking his room up, coming and staying in my room, taking up my bed, and asking me to buy him food. I had just returned from the library, brought him Taco Bell, and wanted to clean a bit before continuing to study for my final the next day. To be clear, if I didn’t pass this class I wouldn’t be on track to graduate or get into my optometry program. He said he didn’t want to help and bitched and moaned but when I pointed out that I had gone out of my way to get Taco Bell for him he agreed to aid. I asked him to just bring up some cleaning stuff and take down my clothes so I could have them clean for work and he left. After an hour or so of waiting for him (yes I was procrastinating and purposely didn’t ask why he was taking so long) I heard him come upstairs with a plate full of sandwiches and go into his room. I was pissed. I started to text him, angrily and cursing I’ll admit, about him not doing shit and being so annoying. I called him a bum for never following on his promises or doing absolutely fucking anything. He started texting in all caps not to call him that otherwise he swore to god I would regret it, and I, being the person that I am (a fucking idiot) called him it again. He rushed out of his room, kicked open my door and threw his phone at me as hard as he could and left me with a bruise. He started standing over me, threatening me, saying shit like he was going to throw me done the stairs, snap my neck, etc. I’ve seen him get that way before- he smashes shit to pieces, breaks anything in his sight, and generally destroys things. For some context he’s a big guy, almost 300lb and used to be able to deadlift 500+lb. I got scared, saw a knife on my counter from dishes I had yet to clean, and pulled it on him. He slowly backed off and went to his room, before I, again, a fucking idiot, called him a bum again. A stupid decision, I know, I would definitely be the bitch that got knifed in a movie and you’d cheer for her death. This time I closed the door before he could come in, he tried to break down the door while I was on the other side, and in response he smashed something made of glass on the other side and punched a hole in my door. I contacted my dad who was far away and he sent my mother home. My mother and I haven’t spoken to each other in a few months since she called me a burden for asking her to help me get my work clothes ready for the week. She came in, spoke to my brother I guess, then came in and spoke to me. She said it was unbelievable and she didn’t know what to say and when I explained what happened and then told me to study for my test. She also went back to talk to him and came back to talk with me, asking me if I pulled a knife on him, which I admitted to, only because I was seriously afraid of him pushing me down the stairs or knocking me out. After that I locked the door and when texting my parents about the situation they only told me not to worry about it, just study. I couldn’t, and I swear to god I tried, all night. I was scared and I think in shock. I got to the lecture hall early and tried to study there but that didn’t help either. I had done alright in the class, done very well in the lab, but knew I bombed the final. I went home and didn’t speak to anyone at home for days. After about 3 days I went downstairs and saw my dad who tried to act like it wasn’t a big deal. I explained how insane and irrational the entire situation was and how I wanted to move out. I couldn’t handle dealing with all of their shit, and if I was the problem like they said I was then I would be fixing that too. I have a very important board exam this summer that I also have to take to get into optometry school and I proposed that I would live on campus, only for the summer. He refused, angrily saying that it wasn’t me place to move out, that he would never support me, and that if that’s what I wanted to do I could get the fuck out right now. A few things- I pay partially for my school. I don’t make much but I put a lot of what I do have toward school and the rest towards little things for me and my brother. Secondly, almost every single thing within my bedroom I have paid for. Excluding the mattress, furniture, and my phone, I have paid for everything I need or want through hard work. Thirdly, both my parents are currently unemployed but wealthy. Wealthy enough that they can go on vacations, pay for four cars, go out with their friends, and pay for their son’s tuition with no hassle. It’s only mine that poses a problem, which is the reason they let me work. They attempt to dictate how I should spend my money constantly. The argument went on for an hour, him accusing me of failing because I chose to, him proposing that he get a lock for my door, telling me I could move into the basement, etc. When my father refused to budge I went upstairs, used a loc that I had bought for when your staying at a hotel to barricade the door and have not spoken to him since. It has been a month now and I have not spoke to anyone in person, though my mother has been trying to guilt me into making me give up my refrigerator in my room by telling me my grandfather is in hospice, there will be a funeral soon, and me having that fridge is making me too fat to be presentable, as well as trying to be nice and hugging me when I have to leave for work in the morning. Now, with all of that context, here’s what’s going on. Since the entire incident happened I have been trying to figure out a way to leave. I have looked into campus housing but it’s an additional $7000 per semester that I don’t think I can afford even if I take out student loans and do FAFSA. I’m scared of the position. It’ll put me in when it comes to going to school. I do have another choice though. I recently toured an apartment complex that is beautiful it’s my dream place and the rent is less than $1500 a month. The only problem is that I only currently make being part time 12 to 1300 a month I just got a raise to $18 an hour but even then that’s not gonna be enough to cover it if I’m going to school at the same time, I’ve looked into some options and FAFSA and loans wouldn’t be able to cover any of my housing outside of living on campus. The only problem with living on campus is I can’t make the morning drive less than an hour and a half to work and I’m afraid with how it all affect my schedule and will to study. I was honestly giving up the idea of moving out at all because it seems so impractical and there was no way that I could actually leave and take my stuff with me without a fight. However, I recently learned that my parents tomorrow are leaving on a five day vacation to Vegas with Little to no thought of how that affects me and the position that I’m in with my brother, if I can figure out a way to somehow be able to afford the rent for this place afford a car to get to work because we have really bad public transportation in my area then I think I would just drop out of school and go. I love optometry more than anything and that’s why I was willing to deal with all of this but maybe school just isn’t in the cards for me. I don’t want to give it up but I don’t think that I’ll make it out of here alive, in all honesty. I can’t keep up with everything it’s ruining my life and I’m only 20 years old. But it’s so scary that I don’t know if I can even take the steps to moving out. I just paid tuition for the spring summer semester and have only $500 to my name. I would need to take out a loan to be able to put down the down payment for the car and the apartment and what if I don’t get approved? What if my work doesn’t give me full-time? what am I gonna do then? I don’t have anybody in my life that could help me. I also have a big family that would all be on their side and agree with them and what if I leave and they come back and cause a scene that causes me to lose my job? They would 100% do that. I know for some people it’s a no brainer but put yourself in my shoes. I have no money, family, friends, or support. At least here I have car and my room and sometimes they’re tolerable. I would only have to do it for 1-2(?) more years. On the other hand, this place is destroying me. I hate who I am becoming because of it. Would it be worth giving up my future for getting my dreams or moving out? If you read all of this you’re amazing, thank you so much. I can only stare at a pros and cons list for so long 🙃

I need to preface this by saying that I am not interested in having a back-and-forth in the comment section. If you are interested in speaking with me, kindly message me in DMs.
I'm told women want a man who knows what he wants, so here's the whole nine yards. If there is anything here that you are not willing to accept, then don't. You will not change me now or years down the line. Obviously I intend to grow and mature (as one ought to), but I have decided who I am and what I want out of a relationship.
I am looking for a woman that I can make a permanent covenant bond with; I have no interest in flings or "long-term relationships."
I don't intend to come across as bitter or angry with any of this, just clear and up-front. It makes things easier for both of us.
Age gap is not mandatory. Don't be put off contacting me if you are closer to my age.
A bit about me:
My faith in Christ is paramount in my life. I would not be where I am without him. In taking interests in various things, I've learned a lot about God's character and design. Each new thing I learn fills me with more worship of him and wonder at his works. It is very important to me that you share this admiration of God.
I have a full-time job that I am very satisfied with, but what I feel truly passionate about is art and storytelling. To be honest, I've hit a bit of a block lately as far as my output. But I've been trying to find my feet so I can make something valuable to share with the world. I think that art and stories are a fundamental part of being human, not just a luxury. So pretty much any kind of art will spark passion in me, be it music, cinema, video games, literature, video essay, sculpture, etc. I could go back and forth for hours on a lot of things. My hope is that you and I will be able to enjoy art together and create some of our own.
I frequently spend time with another gentleman from my Church and we enjoy conversations about personal projects and contemporary issues, along with walks along beaches and park trails. He is a very important friend in my life, and I am lucky to know such a kind soul. Things aren't well with my family, so I really need that kind of presence.
While I rely on my bicycle for transport (no car), it's not a problem for me. I've been riding bikes since I was in elementary school (maybe even before). It would be really nice to ride down some trails with you.
What I expect from you:
-You need to be a follower of Jesus Christ. God needs to be an active part of your life because I intend to raise our children under Biblical values.
-You need hobbies and interests apart from me. I'm fine with helping you find things you like.
-You need to be a virgin.
-You must be humble and respectful. "Boss babe" attitudes are not attractive to me.
-You cannot have any tattoos or piercings, or have undergone any kind of surgery that affects your reproductive organs (reassignment, colpocleisis, FGM, tubal ligation, etc). I am not a doctor, so I don't know every situation that could require surgery. If you've had to undergo surgery or medication because of circumstances beyond your control, please let me know; I'm willing to hear your side of things.
-No cosmetic products. It's not good for your body and I am attracted women, not makeup. This includes fake nails and fake eyelashes. I don't need you to look "pretty." You character is more important to me.
-Related to the previous, no use of image filters in photos. I do not like the type of people who are vain and vapid enough to feel the need to use filters on their photos.
-Again related to the previous, you need to have a limited social media presence. If you have a business or post something of value (like art, for example), then I have no problem. What I'm talking about is having an Instagram or Facebook account where you make random posts to nobody in particular to "update" the internet on your life or post tons of pictures of yourself online. Basing your self-worth on the comments and likes from strangers on the internet is unhealthy, and I find people's obsessive need to take pictures of themselves very unattractive and vain.
-If we marry, I expect you treat me as the head of the house. There can't be two leaders in a household because one will have to defer to the other.
-I expect you to view marriage as something that you put work into. Marriages are a team effort, so I expect you to be a help meet.
-You need to treat me like a partner, not an adversary. Getting into arguments and nagging me helps neither of us. You must have conflict-resolution skills and a solution mindset.
-You need excellent communication skills. This means understanding yourself, putting your thoughts into words other people can understand, and verbalizing things rather than expecting me to read your thoughts.
-You cannot play games with me. Telling me about other guys to make me jealous or planning dates for specific days to pressure me into committing to you are wicked and manipulative.
-While we are dating, you cannot have a "backup plan." I expect you to not be splitting your attention between me and other men. This includes spending time outside of work with other men (family excluded).
-You must be in shape. Don't be dishonest with yourself about your weight; check your BMI. This includes being underweight, anorexic, and bulimic.
-You cannot have taken any COVID-19 vaccinations from any provider.
-No smoking, drugs, or drunkenness.
-I expect you to completely renounce fast food if we date or marry. We will never feed our children McDonald's.
What you can expect from me:
-While we are dating, I will not be speaking to other women.
-I cannot meet your height, money, or attractiveness expectations. I am simply an average dude. I am critical, abstract, and imaginative in my thinking though.
-I will not ask you to do something that is unreasonable or demeaning. I will only ask of you what I expect from myself. No relationship is going to be 50/50 100% of the time, but I will put forth the effort I am able to. I expect the same out of you.
-I will not raise my hand against you. My hands will be a safe place for you.
-I will be available to listen to your troubles and help you bear through them.
-I will not demean you or humiliate you, whether or not you are in the room.
-I will show leadership in our house and exercise restraint with a mild temper.
-I will cherish you and treat you as my own body.
-I will devote myself to displaying my love for you in a language you understand, even if I am feeling distant from you because of troubles we face. I expect the same from you.
-I will not turn to another woman and betray you.
-I intend to keep every promise that I make with you.
-I will treat our children with patience and kindness, but diligently discipline them and instruct them appropriately.
Please tell me a bit about yourself and what you expect out of a relationship, but be practical and clear. A list of platitudes like "loyal, honest, etc" does not help me understand what you're looking for. Think about what your expectations look like in a tangible, everyday way.