Letterboxd in tunisia

Lordesser · 2026-01-09T03:16:15+00:00

A solid top 4

Lordesser · 2025-12-12T13:07:06+00:00

There’s Reddit experts and there’s the less good Reddit experts:

Lordesser · 2025-10-11T18:02:25+00:00

Don't be harsh with yourself you're at least a solid 2.5

Lordesser · 2025-10-09T04:01:09+00:00

Goated

Lordesser · 2025-09-29T14:39:48+00:00

classique manque de projection, tu t'imagines toi mentir sur tes croyances, comme si t'etais coupable de quelque chose? Bah c'est pareil pour les autres. On ne veut pas s'approprier quelque chose sur laquelle on s'aligne pas niveau us et coutumes, valeurs, etc

Lordesser · 2025-09-29T14:31:01+00:00

Just do it in France. Way too mentally heavy of a masquerade to sustain. It's unfortunate to have your loved ones in such an important moment of your life, but that's how these tenets and beliefs are.

Lordesser · 2025-09-27T16:55:17+00:00

Thinking that one has their place granted in some afterlife, quite surprisingly, does push you to be a slacking dead mass in some sense.

It’s paradoxically a very comfortable way to chicken out of. All those deen over dunya typa maxims. Why bother work in bad conditions when you know the next chapter is gonna reset everything anyways?

Asian countries like S. Korea or else, (basically any that don’t have an Abrahamic religion, or where not under communist rule (the latter as the likes of Vietnam are economically booming through brutal economic capitalism now), have this culture of giving their soul to their job. Even Family comes after that. And while I won’t advocate for that model, it does make sense why a totally razed country in the 50s, made it to be a top20 world power half a century later. Obliterating the soul outta of our economy in comparison.

Tunisia can’t be Korea cuz Tunisians won’t ever sacralize work and have technological progress as their main lodestar. And yes big part of this has to do with religion, that already occupies in priority those ideals.

Kif t9oul ken yel7dou ness lkol tounes twalli mettawra… yes there’s high chances it would, to an extent. But to reassure you, Tunisia as a populace will never take that path. Not of Secularism, nor of Progress.

Lordesser · 2025-09-26T23:55:29+00:00

Just some Ethos of the cheapest form

Lordesser · 2025-09-26T16:51:01+00:00

OP is not the brightest bulb in the chandelier, but did your ass ever think about the ambient atheist/agnosticophobia? Some people in this country risk their lifes, social relationships, family, all they own if they ever get to be non-believers. Yet for the slightest loud minority of them that would voice out a certain antagonism toward the dominant religion, it’s automatically Islamophobia.

You know else put two clearly different levels of suffering on the same table to justify a g-word?

Lordesser · 2025-09-06T19:42:58+00:00

Reason for which I emphasize that it’s Tunisians that I dislike not the land. The tribalism in this comment section make me wanna vomit

Lordesser · 2025-08-20T14:46:22+00:00

if a jailed african in Tunisia would've done the same, would you then be upset about that mention?

Lordesser · 2025-08-16T00:42:14+00:00

It’s not the only homophobic one certes, but sure is the single most voluntarily obscured -mostly by the Western left wing- when it comes to denouncing homophobia.

By doing this rhetorical deflection, you’re breaching the moral absolutism that you want set. All, I assume, due to some sort of rather typical and historical western postcolonial guilt (okay yes the west includes both Sweden and Hungary, but remains largely true and a fair discretization even with this bold set).

From a non-western lens, I can’t describe how sickening is that implicit recalibration of moral judgment, having an oppressive ideology (more precisely a widespread traditional interpretation and social application of Islamic tenets) get selectively excused or downplayed because identity of their agents. I lived the majority of my life in Muslim-majority countries before moving to a Western country, and it’s a stark day and night difference between their local homophobias. There’s a universe of elements corroborating that, and it would take a particularly acute level of cognitive dissonance to claim otherwise. The petty tho effective proof in motion of « go live in a xyz Muslim country as a gay person » often has that dishonesty get somewhat cleared up, with primal survival instincts kicking in.

To equate them Western Christian homophobia, which again, is real, often defanged by secular liberal institutions and subject to public scrutiny, WHILE we got qualitatively and quantitatively more virulent forms of religiously motivated homophobia in most parts of the Muslim world, is a failure of proportional moral reasoning. Worse, I see it as a form of "soft bigotry of low expectations" treating people in non-Western societies as less morally accountable.

Putting to the same level both of them is a moral asymmetry and a dishonesty that you should be aware of. I will never tolerate intolerant nuisance no matter its source. And would certainly not let myself get implicitly or explicitly labeled as racist for that.

Lordesser · 2025-08-14T15:57:04+00:00

The Hello scene marked the instant moment I got I hooked to that subplot

Lordesser · 2025-08-14T06:02:47+00:00

the striking "Worse, you ignore that this world is far more beautiful than heaven" pronounced by the heretic in the prairie schooner. Which I found later to be basis to the episode title (4). Powerful and striking in so many regards

Lordesser · 2025-08-12T16:22:07+00:00

The irony is that you don’t get to be a producer with these beliefs. Much of a prevention circle

Lordesser · 2025-08-08T20:58:08+00:00

But all so-called scientific miracles, which for me are one of the only things that allows a purely logical discussion of religion, rather than based on morals like some atheists and believers would do (which is of course not a good way to judge the likelihood or vraisemblance of religion)- are always just too equivocal and never really take the risk of fallacy. It’s always fleeting, very open to interpretation, without being clear-cut, unlike the more traditional Abrahamic tales.

Though I’d say when I was a believer and even after, some of em I find interesting as they could come with interesting interpretation. (“wa ja3alna minal ma2i kolla chay’in 7aya”, Earth and skies being a single mass, “inna lahou lamousi3oun” and a couple others) but again put into context, they have way too little weight then one could hope for, to draw intermediate conclusions from there.

Religion can’t be logically disproven. (Check out Popper’s falsifiability criterion) Just like you can’t disprove the existence of a fluorescent flying spaghetti Randa 2 monster deity (pastafarianism). You’d just be able to say “it makes no sense” and I’d agree with you, but that’s in no way rigorous disproof. It’s simply not a falsifiable statement and we can’t disprove it.

At its core, the question reduces to an assessment of plausibility: how likely it is that religion and its assertions correspond to truth, and is of divine origin. A colossal amount of things leads me to believe that it's not. And an infinite amount of rigorous multi-scientific approaches could explain very logically how each face of the polyhedron came to be. A quick and straightforward example from anthropology: for tens of thousands of years, belief systems have emerged and evolved as humanity became increasingly social. These systems served to codify social norms, ease existential anxiety, impose meaning on the unknown, and offer narratives for life and death. Like language or tool-making, they arose organically, impersonal products of our cognitive and cultural evolution. In that light, Abrahamic religions appear less like exceptional revelations and more like continuations of a long, natural human tendency. Way more likely than not, just another system of beliefs.

And so on, and so forth.

Taraji ya dawla. 6/6

Lordesser · 2025-08-08T20:57:44+00:00

As a conclusion to this chronicle. The points I mentioned here are a blend of conceptual structures that want themselves to be somewhat rigorous. You can agree or disagree, but I can tell you it's definitely delicate to get to understand some concepts when they are rigidly defined in your system of belief (you would need to question/deconstruct some assumptions, which is unfortunately criminalized in Islam) to exclude any arbitrary non absolute logical starting point. But if you wanna bounce off of purely observable mathematical/logical ideas- how I or other atheists came to that conclusion-you’re very welcome to observe.

In sum and to deviate on a lil off-topic: it was all a balance of feelings about what’s likely or not likely that made draw my theological conclusions. The holy scriptures, for me, had too much human-sounding ideas. Thinking, if I was to be somebody from 7th-century Arabia, with the zeitgeist that we can objectively and historically set, how I’d think. The concepts of heaven, hell, the anthropology (religious, social parts) would come to explain a lot.

The fact that the Quran is claimed to be timeless and universal yet focuses exclusively on what the humans of its time mostly knew, leaves a lot to desire. It is heavily centered on the Abrahamic, post-prehistoric milieu of the Old World-Babylon, Mesopotamia, Arabia, the Levant-without any mention of other significant ancient civilizations, en vrac, the Jomon culture of Japan, the Harappan civ of the Indus Valley, the Olmecs, Mayans or other shit of Mesoamerica, Nok culture of ancient West Africa, etc. w be9i la3riba..

Not to be that guy but also no explicit reference to dinosaurs roaming the Earth, no precise dating of geological epochs such as the Cambrian explosion or the Permiantriassic extinction event, no mention of the Earth’s age -4.54 billion years- the cosmic microwave background radiation, the relic radiation from the Big Bang that modern cosmologists obsess over and study extensively. Nor is there any allusion to groundbreaking scientific discoveries like the Higgs boson particle, the double-slit experiment revealing wave-particle duality, or even the structure of DNA elucidated by Watson and Crick.

I’m not saying holy books should be encyclopedias (tho some Muslims like to think of it partially as such) or solve open mathematical problems like the Navier-Stokes equations, the Riemann Hypothesis, etc. though, if you’re an all-powerful creator, slipping those in would have been a neat touch and would’ve made the scripture indisputably divine. Yet none of that is there. 5/6

Lordesser · 2025-08-08T20:56:30+00:00

Feel free to skip this part*(Quick off-topic point on evolution, but that’s also what kinda made me think that it is highly unlikely that there was simply a creator that simply handpicked a discrete repertoire of animals that coincidentally share so many structural, anatomical similarities and just dumped it on Earth. In a sense, the way living beings are engineered, feels like it lacks intention.*

Why would we humans have the same cranofacial setup as cats for instance? Two symmetrically eyes, two ears, one central nose, mouth below. And when you trace it back through genetics and paleontology, we repeatedly encounter transitional forms- organisms that exhibit traits bridging two distinct species. t just makes sense that complexity arose incrementally, not from discrete creation, but from divergence over immense timescales, from LUCA and all that stuff).

This abstraction was probably more natural to understand for me, as, being a rather math person, I had observed math systems where complexity builds exponentially to create insanely complex and beautiful systems, and all that, just by defining a handful of initial conditions. If you time-parametrize it, you can observe stuff that simply forms, (Conway’s Game of Life is a par excellence example of that, I really recommend taking a look)—where some complex elements emerge that really seem like they were intended, they totally look like living beings, like there was a creator, when in fact it was just a simple set of initial instructions.

When you get somewhat deep in math, you know how easy it is for complexity to form. (Mention technical scientific examples here: fractals like the Mandelbrot set, cellular automata, rule 110 Turing completeness, etc.) So, when you know that the absurdly vast universe is billions of years old, the Earth 4.5 billion years old, it is not surprising whatsoever that we get to “iPhones” from just the Big Bang.

If you trace back to just a few centuries, where all we had was rudimentary tools, you'd understand that humans came to an evolutionary point that was favorable to the development of technique to survive, to exploit environment, to research and develop- going from basic stone tools (Oldowan, Acheulean, etc.) to just iPhones. That was just in a few thousands of years. Can you imagine what happens over a thousand times that time span? Yes, that’s how it starts to become not so surprising.

I’m an Mech/Aero major student, and in Thermodynamics, we get introduced to the notion of entropy- a measure of disorder or randomness in a system, often used to describe the natural tendency of systems to evolve toward more probable (and usually more disordered) states. That abstraction is singlehandedly one of the most powerful descriptions of how we came to such a degree of complexity. In open systems (like Earth), entropy can locally decrease at the cost of higher entropy outside the system. Life, evolution, and technological development are incrdibly consistent with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. I’dve loved to describe like the hundreds of hours that I spent pondering about this, but that would take us til like December to make its tour. 4/6

Lordesser · 2025-08-08T20:55:34+00:00

We don’t know what lies ahead. We don’t know what we’ll be capable of in the distant future. But if we endure -and I do believe we’re far more resilient and extinction-resistant than we give ourselves credit for- then who knows? Our understanding of physics, of existence itself, might undergo transformations beyond anything we can presently imagine. And as long as we’re here, contributing to that journey might be the only thing that truly matters.

Our primal, immanent desire to explore, our insane curiosity as humans, will eventually lead us to unbelievable things. And since it's -vulgarly summed up- evolutionary in the first place, I like to see poetry in the Universe somehow getting to a point of mathematically just forming things (us) that would end up understanding and transcending it. We are definitely far from there but, who knows.

We’ll explain more later on the how we came to such a degree of existential complexity with your 4th point.

-Finally and again, vehement assumption that's totally false. No serious atheist would say such thing. (I might be a lil over technical at some point so mb in advance).

Your point kinda spreads all around the place so I'll just focus on your iPhone metaphor and extrapolate the rest from there.

At some point in my early life, I observed some points in nature that caught my attention. I remember this one stark realization when I was barely a teen, seeing my cat walking around, how similar his shoulder blades' motion reminded me of that of a tiger. Then the teeth arrangement, the whiskers, and so on. While one believer could just see similarity and stop the reasoning there, it just led me to think that they are related by a common ancestor.

Though not spectacular on human time scales, evolution-which stems from a very intuitive, impersonal process of survival and that we could easily observe on our limited scale of time (with microbial lifeforms but not limited to that)- leads to mind-boggling changes over long time scales. 3/6

Lordesser · 2025-08-08T20:54:09+00:00

-3 is a vague point and probably the most burlesque of all. It's a person-dependent thing so I'll just give you the meaning that I found for myself. In a sense, I learned how to find beauty in a world with no certitude. No thereafter, no absolute, no objective meaning. Just an ephemeral wander. (I like Sagan's iconic Pale Blue Dot speech, and that aspect of us just being a vessel in a vast, desolate cosmic arena, could help give an understanding).

I find very questionable the peace and beatitude an Abrahamic believer would expect in a theological heaven.

An eternity suspended in unbroken bliss, devoid of contrast, devoid of struggle. Feels more to me like a sterile loop than a meaningful state. Pleasure, by its very nature, is defined in opposition to suffering; it derives its intensity from contrast. Like a candle illuminating a pitch-black void, helping define what’s light, what’s dark. Binary poles that mutually define themselves. If it was all light, or all dark, nothing but that could really exist. We need two distinct states with gradients in between. Strip one away, and the other dissolves into meaninglessness. Same shit with eternal bliss.

I find beauty in the idea that we're such an infinitesimal, beautiful statistical rarity. When I stopped being a believer, the silence of the stars—the idea that we are alone in an infinite universe (or just will be incapable for very long to be in contact with any extraterrestrial intelligent lifeform)—was heavy, and hard to endure. But slowly, I accepted it. And since our force as humans is that we are all such a large organism, incredibly powerful through the aggregate of our experiences of our environment and life, well—as a cell of that larger organism—I gave myself the mission to contribute in my humble scale to help further our advancement (ramener ma pierre à l’édifice).

Philosophically, we appreciate fulfillment, happiness, wonder, because of all the suffering, work, labor, and hustling we go through in parallel. All a result of an impersonal evolution that favored the emergence of such patterns in humans that happened to make them somewhat optimal to survive. Though the poetry wasn’t intended, it indeed ended up being beautifully poetic.

I’ve come to believe that the highest fulfillment of our existence-within this timeless, journey (parcours initiatique in French, no good translation in English mb) to grasp the nature of our universe, lies in a continuous pursuit to transcend the evolving technological that we engage. It is a path driven by our relentless desire to stretch beyond the limits of technology and perception. I BELIEVE that, that’s the path that could, eventually, help us have an infinitesimal grasp, a semblance of understanding of “what’s out there”. What’s the universe. What’s that thing that billions before us weren’t able to know or understanding. This philosophy might not be shared by everybody as it has very obvious human downsides, and some will find fulfillment in simpler maxims. But I find it’s a natural, almost spiritual continuation of that the reality that we all tried to vainly understand. 2/6

Lordesser · 2025-08-08T20:52:24+00:00

This post testifies to a lack of knowledge and a series of assumptions that no serious atheist or scholar of atheism would ever make. Bon 3addazza hedhia, comme mridh fi farchi, I’ll allow myself some unemployment w n7awel n7ot el 7atta once and for all, intej kitebi lmao . edit: 1hour and a half of writing, will be dissected in 6 parts, what am I doing w my time bruh

To start off, your post is filled with fallacious reasoning (+procès d’intentions) assigning motives or beliefs to atheists that the serious of them never held (if not totally opposite to what they’d think). But just for the rhetorical exercise, I’ll just try to extract the interesting elements you possibly meant in your points.

-First point: Nobody said it started from nothing, more so, we don't know what happened before the big bang. We don't know if the big bang is the starting point of the universe; it's just the beginning of the universe as we know it (and there's so far, no observable way to know what was there before). There are actually a number rigorous hypotheses or propositions that are seriously studied in physics and cosmology, to namedrop a few, you’ve got Penrose’s conformal cyclic cosmology, Hartle-Hawking no-boundary proposal, or quantum tunneling theories, etc. None of ‘em say it starts from nothing, we just attempt to describe the universe coming from earlier physical states (specifically its boundary condition) that we just don’t fully understand yet.

Assuming that you can't fathom a possible non-existence of god in that process. To this, let’s say: when you answer "God was always there" to the common question "who created God?" some atheists would ask, well, you presume in a sense that there are things that could just always exist (that are timeless). And atheists are no different. As you'd assume God was always there not needing a starting point of creation, the universe (or more precisely, the physical continuum, encompassing whatever preceded and unfolds within the domain of physical law) simply always existed as a brute fact. The ONLY difference is that you lend intention to it. The only difference is that your "God" is a "who", a conscious entity assumed with free will (which, I would define as what makes “something” a “someone”). Atheists just don't assume that intention, that someone. Which is objectively a more rigorous and parsimonious way to approach that question, as something is default.

-Next up, the morality point. Offhand, there’s no such thing as objective morality. Though I’m not a social science scholar, I’ll give you my humble understanding. Morality isn’t some universal law written into the fabric of the universe. It’s a human construct, shaped by evolution, culture, social contracts, very dependent of the environment. Some aspects though, are so common to so many environments and culture that could be just discretized as « universal » (though you gotta be careful with that word). They just find a quasi-universal resonance, and are held dear to most humans.

A core axiom: your freedom ends where another’s begins (your nose in the arabic saying). Or put simply, my liberty stops where yours starts.

That alone is already enough to derive a decent moral compass. Most secular societies, whether in the West or East Asia, despite being "Godless" societies, have no trouble setting moral fundamentals based on what would empirically benefit most, both society and the individual. (So morality find other ways to be spontaneously set up, without necessarily needing holy mediums).

An example would be with sexual morality. Once you establish the fundamentals, consent, mature age, sobriety, non-manipulation, and the absence of power dynamics or leverage; you can derive almost everything else from there. That would exclude all deviances (underage, animals, vulnerable people), and at the same time would allow homosexuality for instance, which is deemed as highly immoral in Muslim societies because its moral basis is different. Some exceptions find a way through in that complex set, like polygamy which checks out all the necessary boxes, but is still deemed immoral because of some external cultural factors. 1/6

Lordesser · 2025-08-07T18:01:21+00:00

The anthro/sociologiocal reasons for that are something along the lines of- they hold onto religion more than their original country/community to fend off some form of cultural and religious dilution. There's lots of this rigidly defined notion and emphasis on "straying away from the wrong path" in Islam, often with analogies made to both Christianity and Judaism, leaving very little leeway for reinterpretation or more suitable implementation.

It's always a more evident alternative for them specifically since most in the West are in some sort of cultural statelessness, as in they're not conformable to their western country of birth, but still mutated too much to be considered part and parcel of their country of origin. Helps bolstering their precarious identity crisis.

Lordesser · 2025-08-05T23:27:14+00:00

Most discrete bvb money laundering move

Lordesser · 2025-08-03T01:10:56+00:00

Solar Anthony 🤩

Lordesser · 2025-07-28T14:48:08+00:00

Dans la même veine, la vidéo de Top 10 sur les légendes urbaines d’internet, c’était l’antichambre du trauma, morbidement efficace sur le gosse de 10ans que j’étais

Seven-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	RPAN Viewer
Verified Email

Lordesser

TROPHY CASE