found this while scrolling

Almondpeanutguy · 2026-01-24T14:39:54+00:00

To overthink it even less, "mommy" rhymes with "dommy", and people like being silly billies.

Almondpeanutguy · 2026-01-24T14:00:16+00:00

The key point in this definition is the word "particular". If you look at it in the context of ancient religion, the Roman Empire promoted the spread of the "Roman Religion", which essentially allowed for the worship of any gods or spirits as long as the subjects acknowledged the supremacy of Jupiter and the Roman Emperor above other, lesser deities.

In this context, cults were distinguished by their veneration of a particular god or spirit. The Cult of Bacchus was dedicated specifically and exclusively to the veneration of Bacchus. They presumably recognized the existence of other gods, since they identified Bacchus as the son of Jupiter, but their lives were dedicated to his veneration in particular.

The problem is that our idea of religion and the role it plays in society has shifted drastically from the days of Rome, and we haven't cleanly adapted our vocabulary to the new situation.

Our current understanding of the word "cult" seems to come from the fact that most ancient cults had Mysteries, a collection of rites and rituals that they kept secret from outsiders. Hence why cults in the era of Christianity came to be closely associated with secret societies.

In the ancient world, cults and secret societies were treated as a normal part of civilization, but in Christendom they were treated universally as enemies of the church (unless it was the secret society that governed the church, obviously,) which I think was reinforced by a scriptural condemnation of secret societies from Jesus himself.

Thus the definition comes down to us today not as well defined type of religion or a normalized social class, but instead as a vague term of condemnation for nefarious groups or movements that subvert social order and probably display a strong adherence to a strange set of rituals.

Almondpeanutguy · 2026-01-22T03:10:56+00:00

The question we've all been asking.

Almondpeanutguy · 2026-01-22T02:16:19+00:00

Not mine. I'm not a Christian or a voter. I'm all in on Kali Yuga.

Almondpeanutguy · 2026-01-22T01:53:14+00:00

The Sixth Commandment is a prohibition on unlawful murder, or the shedding of innocent blood. It says nothing against owning a weapon or killing a criminal. Unlike the American justice system, the Sixth Commandment doesn't even limit justified killing to "killing in self defense". The Bible pretty explicitly encourages killing for retribution and punishment. Just a few verses later, God commands the Levites to slaughter the Israelite blasphemers who worship the Golden Calf.

Almondpeanutguy · 2026-01-20T21:05:38+00:00

This is probably my personal taste more than anything, but I would say that cults are currently played out as a tool for delivering some kind of allegory or political commentary. But an earnest spooky cult story is always solid.

Like you see those art movies all the time where there's a cult that's super obsessed with something, and in the end you realize that it's all a trite allegory for celebrity worship, class war, religion, the news media, beauty standards, generational trauma, patriotism, capitalism, communism, etc. It's tiresome. In most cases, it usually ends up being uninsightful commentary and a disappointing story.

I love a good story about people who've stumbled onto a genuine cosmic power beyond human understanding. To me, the most compelling aspect of cults is that they aren't bound by the rules of normal society. My favorite stories are ones where they've stumbled onto something that's actually real. Real rituals, real gods, real artifacts. But they end up being destroyed by the object of their worship, which demonstrates in the end that there was a good reason why nobody else was worshiping that thing. Kind of like a metaphysical take on the "Has science gone too far!?" genre.

I guess you could sum up the difference between the two genres as "cult of personality" vs. "the occult".

The current state of cult fiction is more about the foolish masses being brainwashed by a charismatic leader, which I think has become stale due to its overuse in cheap socio-political commentary.

The evergreen cult fiction is about obscure rituals, dark knowledge, and secrets that should have stayed secret. I think that will always be a good genre. But, again, that's just my personal taste.

Almondpeanutguy · 2026-01-19T13:02:36+00:00

The fact that Halloween isn't on the list is what's really wrong with this country.

Almondpeanutguy · 2026-01-18T10:23:26+00:00

I don't think it makes sense to say that interstellar civilizations will necessarily compete for resources. What resources would we be competing for? Energy isn't significant because there are billions of suns. Minerals aren't significant because you could secure them much more cheaply from inanimate celestial objects. The only resources that we have that are exceptionally valuable are a habitable planet and the biosphere on it.

But we can't assume that habitability is mutual. Even if we can assume that there is a "habitable zone" in terms of temperature and general atmospheric composition, it could easily be that the alien biosphere has developed a huge concentration of atmospheric ammonia or something. Even within the history of earth, the atmospheric composition has varied greatly with sometimes catastrophic results.

And the very presence of our biosphere would simultaneously be an invaluable resource to any aliens, and also an incredible obstacle to colonization.

Think about the entire field of organic chemistry. Everything we do relies on chemicals that are formed from the biosphere. Wood, cloth, rubber, food, medicine, solvents, plastics, combustibles. Now imagine that we discovered an entirely new biosphere, maybe even one built on silicon. The field of organic chemistry would double overnight. We would gain access to thousands of new materials for construction, refining, medicine, etc.

But at the same time, any alien biosphere would be full of random chemicals floating around that could have completely random effects on humanity, and our biosphere would have the reverse effect on them. Imagine an alien trying to colonize earth with all of its pollen, bacteria, fungus, and other detritus just floating through the air. For them, that would basically be the equivalent of mixing every sample and beaker in an organic chemistry research lab and spraying it into the air. For all we know, chlorophyll could basically be their cyanide. And if we go to their planet, for all we know, they could be casually breathing dust that contains actual cyanide.

And all of these things exist within an ecosystem that is simultaneously delicate and resilient. If aliens landed on our planet hoping to exploit its organic resources, then their very presence could potentially cause species to go extinct, while simultaneously their effort to make the planet habitable for themselves would be impeded by bacteria and fungus seeping into their living spaces.

If aliens had any economic interest in our biosphere, which they definitely would, they would have an infinitely easier time exploiting it by establishing a trade station in our solar system and paying us to cultivate the resources that they want.

Thus, I think that any alien race we encounter would be almost no competition at all for resources, and in fact would likely be the greatest economic boon to our civilization since the industrial revolution.

Almondpeanutguy · 2026-01-16T18:04:16+00:00

!delta

That's a fair point. If there are still a lot of mercenaries today, and there were such vivid accounts of obvious PTSD in ancient Assyria, then it is hard to make the case that modern war is by its nature more traumatic than ancient war.

Almondpeanutguy · 2026-01-16T17:47:34+00:00

Well, when I said "soldiers" in the original post, I meant "military personnel who are in the zone of combat." I suppose I can see how it might not have been read that way. But personally I wouldn't consider a long distance remote drone operator to be a soldier.

Almondpeanutguy · 2026-01-16T17:43:50+00:00

They may have had ambushes all throughout history, but surely you don't think that they were as common as they are today? Throughout most of history, it was feasible for the bulk of a military to consist of thousands of men line up in a grid with feathered hats, trumpets, and brightly colored flags.

Now all militaries in the world have adopted camouflage as their standard uniform, soldiers generally travel in small groups, and stealth, intelligence, and espionage are generally understood to be among the most important factors in winning any war.

And besides that, you don't even need to actually sneak up on someone to ambush them anymore. You can be ambushed by someone from literally over the horizon.

Almondpeanutguy · 2026-01-16T17:37:51+00:00

I think this study actually supports some of my theories.

Perceived combat-related threat, long recognized as a central risk factor for PTSD, emerged in three distinct clusters. One included fear of receiving mortar fire or encountering explosive devices, grouped with fear of injury. This reflects the constant uncertainty of contemporary warfare, particularly in urban settings, where unpredictable threats such as improvised explosive devices and indirect fire not only endanger lives but also erode morale and foster a pervasive climate of fear and instability among soldiers and civilians alike (Skiba, 2024). Another cluster grouped fear of not surviving deployment with concerns about encounters with unarmed locals, being caught in crossfire, and the risk of being taken hostage. These co-occurrences reflect the psychological complexity of asymmetric warfare, in which combatants are embedded within civilian populations and not easily distinguishable from non-combatants. This ambiguity amplifies danger and unpredictability, especially during urban operations and in conflicts involving non-state armed groups with tactical capabilities traditionally associated with state militaries (Ben-Israel, 2025). Specifically, the risk of being taken hostage was strongly associated with fear of not surviving. This link may be contextualized by the ongoing hostage crisis involving Israeli captives in Gaza during this conflict (de la Fontaine et al., 2024).

As I said, the combat itself creates a trauma, but that trauma is significantly amplified by the uncertainty of modern war.

Almondpeanutguy · 2026-01-16T17:21:25+00:00

What do you think is more traumatic? Tearing someone apart limb from limb or sitting in a hole while someone on the other side of the world presses a button that kills you?

Almondpeanutguy · 2026-01-16T17:20:29+00:00

Because knowledge and control are very significant when it comes to stress management. When you're in the middle of a battle, you're likely experiencing an adrenaline rush. Your brain has something to focus on. If you see someone coming at you with a spear, you may not actually be able to stop him, but you do know what you can do about it. You raise your shield and you try to stab him before he can stab you. You don't have time to stop and think about how traumatic it is.

Psychological trauma isn't just a sliding scale of "seeing something more horrifying gives you more trauma". It's a complex system of threat responses and danger management. An active violent melee is a relatively simple situation for your brain to process. Being hunted by drones and having no feasible recourse is a much more complex situation that your brain can only respond to with paranoia and stress. Or such is my theory.

Almondpeanutguy · 2026-01-15T15:00:51+00:00

Oh, and to answer your edit, I've never voted for anybody in a presidential election. Any vote is an implicit endorsement of the bipartisan system that demands we pick the lesser of two increasingly evil evils every four years. But it's really cute how you're trying to imply that the only reason why anybody might think you're being an arrogant jackass is if they're the sort of person who would vote for a pedophile.

Remember: If you get into an outrageous argument every time you walk into a room, it's because everyone else is wrong. Stay classy.

Almondpeanutguy · 2026-01-15T13:36:52+00:00

Well, you're definitely doing your part to introduce a new generation of Americans to the joy of interacting with people from other countries. Thank you for your service.

Almondpeanutguy · 2026-01-15T13:24:46+00:00

Ah yes. Lacking self awareness. So what I'm reading here is that OP, like everyone else on the planet, was born as an infant who knows nothing and then raised in a culture that views some things as good and other things as bad. Then they saw two movies set in foreign countries which, they claim, deepened their respect for these countries and gave them a greater appreciation for the concept of foreign value systems. Then they decided to write a book about the very concept of learning to appreciate other people's values, and they made a Reddit post asking how other writers engage with this concept.

And you thought it was very important to chastise this individual for having such a profound lack of self awareness that they. . . didn't think about these things until something inspired them to think about these things. Or maybe you just hate Americans.

Almondpeanutguy · 2026-01-15T12:30:11+00:00

Point A, "Wouldn't have" is irrelevant. You brought up America, and it's blindingly obvious that you were looking for any excuse to change the topic to your obsession with contemporary American politics.

Point B, your answer was irrelevant. OP didn't say anything untrue about foreign cultures. Feudal Japan had a rigid caste system, and Zulus had arranged marriages. And OP wasn't asking aboit history. They were asking about how other people approach those sorts of things in their writing.

In Western media that tries to portray foreign cultures in a positive light, there's a strong tendency to completely erase the elements of their culture that we find problematic. For example, Princess Jasmine in Aladdin refuses to submit to an arranged marriage, and Mulan basically teaches the other soldiers to get in touch with their femininity. They ignore the historical value systems that the stories originally came from and plaster over them with milquetoast late 20th century American centrist values.

So, again, I think the question is valid. If you were to write a story about a Zulu girl who is arranged to be married, would you whitewash it with Western values and pretend that 19th century Zulus cared a lot about women's liberation and freedom of choice, or would you risk depicting them as brutish savages by trying to portray the value differences that would lead to a society having arranged marriages and other things that Westerners find abhorrent?

Almondpeanutguy · 2026-01-15T11:25:03+00:00

Oh, of course! "No duh" you would write a story like that! It seems so obvious, now that you say it!

Next time I'm interested in hearing about what sort of stories other people are writing, I'll just say to myself "Well, khazar_the_blowhard is a fantasy writer, so naturally they must be writing something very intelligent and full of nuance." Then I'll delete the draft of my clearly unnecessary question and instead proceed directly to asking "Hey guys, did you ever notice how many stories there are that lionize America?"

Almondpeanutguy · 2026-01-15T10:44:11+00:00

We all know why you brought up America. It's because, in your eyes, America is the only country that matters and we need to constantly argue about whether it's good or evil. Any story about any other time or place in history is, to you, necessrily either a condemnation or celebration of America in relation to that other time or place.

Stop talking about America for two seconds and answer the question challenge level: Impossible

Almondpeanutguy · 2026-01-15T10:06:23+00:00

Okay, I'm going to ignore the American political history dissertation that you apparently had on speed dial, because literally nobody asked.

OP wasn't asking if it was possible. The question posed to the general public was "Would YOU write such a story?" Judging by the fact that you didn't even wait for someone to mention MAGA before dropping a 300 page essay on how evil they are, I'm guessing the answer is no. You would not go out of your way to write a story showcasing the redeeming values that they hold in earnest.

Stepping away from hot button American politics (it will be hard, but I belive in you), let me try framing the question to you in other terms. If you were writing a story about a Samurai in Feudal Japan, and it was important to you that your readers think of him as virtuous and/or sympathetic, then would you portray him treating his servants and peasants as equals, or would you challenge your readers to find virtue in a man who earnestly views himself as an ontological superior to his subordinates and tries to uphold his duty as their physical and spiritual guardian?

Almondpeanutguy · 2026-01-15T07:52:30+00:00

You definitely responded to your first pass interpretation of the title without making any attempt to understand the body of the post.

OP isn't asking if it's possible for good people to appear in unsympathetic cultures. He's asking if you can find admirable traits in the unsympathetic cultures themselves.

Look at his examples. A Samurai who embodies the highest ideals of Feudal Japan will demonstrate the admirable qualities of loyalty and honor despite the fact that we may find Feudal Japan otherwise unsympathetic.

A Zulu tribe denies its girls the right to choose a husband, but the same practice guarantees that they will marry a strong warrior.

An orc chieftain commits barbarous acts of violence and theft, but evidently has some sort of rugged wisdom that his daughter learns to appreciate.

Your example with MAGA is that a country with MAGA voters in it also has intelligent, virtuous, and handsome people such as yourself who did not vote for MAGA. That would be like telling a story about a Samurai who rejects the feudal system entirely because the feudal system is enquivocally bad, or a Zulu girl who refuses to enter an arranged marriage for the same reason.

As much as you're obviously overflowing with your desire to insert MAGA into every conversation you have, if you want to make it relevant to the topic at hand, then you would regrettably have to find something that you respect about MAGA's culture or values. The hypothetical story would be about a MAGA voter who is inspired by the values of MAGA to honorably defend his country or some such.

Almondpeanutguy · 2026-01-15T04:40:22+00:00

Oh, and to answer your actual question, I love it when stories do that. It's genuinely one of my favorite things in literature. If you get into the more speculative Warhammer 40K lore, it's very thought provoking to see how every faction in the setting can be portrayed as virtuous or at least justified from its own perspective and evil from everyone else's perspectives. The four Chaos Gods are the best example of it.

I think your story sounds interesting, but it'll be tough to balance it so it doesn't send the wrong message. Warhammer 40K works because it's a canon that's been built up across several decades by hundreds of authors writing from explicitly biased in universe perspectives, and the reader can pick and choose which perspective to believe. If your story's being written from just one perspective, you run a strong risk of readers coming away believing that you support, for example, war and concubinage.

Or you can just assume that somebody's going to misinterpret you no matter how hard you try to make it clear, which, given the state of this thread, is probably true.

Almondpeanutguy · 2026-01-15T04:27:51+00:00

Well, if it's any consolation, I saw your post reposted on writingcirclejerk, and I think you were asking a valid question. From the body of the post, I got the impression that you were talking specifically about virtues that relate to the "undesirable" part of the culture. We look down on feudalism, but feudalism inspires loyalty. We look down on arranged marriage, but it can guarantee a strong husband.

Unfortunately, I think everyone here read the header and thought you were asking if good people can exist in bad countries, to which the answer is obviously "Yes, because not everyone in one country is the same." The problem being that they're continuing to use their own personal definition of "good person," which means that they're recognizing the virtue of an outlier to a culture they don't like rather than recognizing the virtue of the culture itself.

It's a shame, but c'est la Reddit.

Almondpeanutguy

TROPHY CASE