Tomodachi ga Hoshikatta no de Akuma o Fukkatsu Sasemashita wa!

[MangaDex]

 

[leviadragon]

hmmm... yuri?

 

[soumysahu]

hmmm... yuri?

yuri
also straight

 

[soumysahu]

This kind of development will only occur if you rob the previous memories, gives a nature and conscience to think to a character.

If you have watched conjuring, the demons/ other beings have self-motivation to do their things.
This kind of thing isn't plausible in other media.

 

[luna367]

Same question as everyone... Yuri tag..?

 

[leviadragon]

yuri
also straight

? So the series shows off both gay and straight relationships? cuz those two descriptors when referring to a single couple would be mutually exclusive.

 

[leviadragon]

This kind of development will only occur if you rob the previous memories, gives a nature and conscience to think to a character.

If you have watched conjuring, the demons/ other beings have self-motivation to do their things.
This kind of thing isn't plausible in other media.

So uh... Demons aren't real? So different authors can write them differently with different rules. This author has decided to write a demon capable of forming friendly connections with humans, this is their universe, so they're allowed to determine how things work.

 

[TopAgarDealer]

So uh... Demons aren't real? So different authors can write them differently with different rules. This author has decided to write a demon capable of forming friendly connections with humans, this is their universe, so they're allowed to determine how things work.

demons and humans are both by their nature evil. so it's not implausible they become friends.

 

[leviadragon]

demons and humans are both by their nature evil. so it's not implausible they become friends.

Humans are not inherently evil by nature. That's just propaganda that religions teach people to get them to donate more money in "penance" by driving people's self-loathing, as well as give them an excuse to be shitty to minorities.

 

[TopAgarDealer]

Humans are not inherently evil by nature. That's just propaganda that religions teach people to get them to donate more money in "penance" by driving people's self-loathing, as well as give them an excuse to be shitty to minorities.

Human nature and demons are the inventions of certain specific religions, ideologies, etc. My point is that the two concepts being explored together makes even more sense given that they have similarities within a certain spiritual outlook that has had the most influence on popular culture's ideas about one of the two.

"Humans are not inherently evil by nature" is just one of various philosophical or religious outlooks. Religion also isn't "propaganda" (whatever that means), it is also a complex categorization of various beliefs, practices, values, etc. that interact with society in much more complex ways. You don't know how religious systems actually build, grow, or maintain themselves. You don't know how religion and majority population's attitudes towards minorities actually intersect. And you don't know what "propaganda" is because you are a stupid American. But then again, I'd also just be making massive assumptions about shit I do not know at all, just like you.

 

[leviadragon]

Human nature and demons are the inventions of certain specific religions, ideologies, etc. My point is that the two concepts being explored together makes even more sense given that they have similarities within a certain spiritual outlook that has had the most influence on popular culture's ideas about one of the two.

"Humans are not inherently evil by nature" is just one of various philosophical or religious outlooks. Religion also isn't "propaganda" (whatever that means), it is also a complex categorization of various beliefs, practices, values, etc. that interact with society in much more complex ways. You don't know how religious systems actually build, grow, or maintain themselves. You don't know how religion and majority population's attitudes towards minorities actually intersect. And you don't know what "propaganda" is because you are a stupid American. But then again, I'd also just be making massive assumptions about shit I do not know at all, just like you.

Well that was an unnecessarily long tirade. I will clarify something upfront, you do in fact not know me, because I'm not American, I'm Australian. My level of intelligence I will not comment on, for risk of egotism or self-deprecation, but I'm sure you can draw your own conclusions now that you have given me an excuse to take this a little more seriously. Your assumption that I know little of religion due to not immediately providing a thesis statement in a manga comments thread is rather misguided.

Now as to religion and human nature? Yes there are a number of subjective aspects to those topics that can be debated or defined under different critical lenses, however the historic ties between organized hierarchical religious structures and Propaganda, as well as crimes against humanity is a matter of historic record.

Atrocities from the Crusades to the Transatlantic slave trade, to the Spanish inquisition. to the Salem witch trials, to modern satanic panics and transphobic conspiracy theories were and are justified by Christofascist rhetoric. I would venture a guess that other religions have similar histories, but I am not as well-versed on them. What is obvious from even a cursory examination of Power throughout history is that spirituality, while not inherently negative in itself, can be easily weaponised by those who rule in order to control the general populace and oppress outgroups.

If you truly need me to define propaganda for you, then I suppose I can accommodate that. the official definition refers to any argumentative material released by an Organization that seeks to persuade people towards a certain ideological standing, the more negative connotations of being deceptive in some way, emerges from these tactics being deployed by world governments to lie about their enemies, thus shaping popular understanding of the term. This is distinct from Education, the relaying of (theoretically) accurate information to help people understand the world better. In this light, religions are very much propagandists, both in terms of relaying inaccurate information, and in terms of often having ulterior motives for doing so.

As to my statement about humans not being inherently evil by nature, this is a slightly reductive statement I will agree, but again, I was not applying standards of academic rigour before, nor should I have to in such a casual context. But here we go, firstly the category of Ontological evil is already a difficult argument to make when morality is typically built equal parts from the material conditions of a given time and place, and from simple principles that emerge from a logical, naturalistic basis (e.g. killing a peer without cause endangers society as a whole due to instability it introduces to the social contract, as well as removing potential workers towards the tasks needed to sustain the social group under the highly mutualistic structure of human society) As such, talking about inherent human nature as evil often ends up patently absurd, with natural activities (masturbation) labelled as evil, or an imagined sin from a mythic past ascribed to all humanity, judging by what actual sociological researchers have observed in various studies, the typical child, while not "innocent" does not possess some inherent elemental force of "evil" and instead tends to exhibit healthy behaviour for a social species.

In short, Spirituality is not the issue, Hierarchical structures (which many religions fall into) are, in much the same way as corporations and governments give too much power to a small handful of people on top that they often misuse, so to is this true for religion.

 

[TopAgarDealer]

Well that was an unnecessarily long tirade. I will clarify something upfront, you do in fact not know me, because I'm not American, I'm Australian. My level of intelligence I will not comment on, for risk of egotism or self-deprecation, but I'm sure you can draw your own conclusions now that you have given me an excuse to take this a little more seriously. Your assumption that I know little of religion due to not immediately providing a thesis statement in a manga comments thread is rather misguided.

Now as to religion and human nature? Yes there are a number of subjective aspects to those topics that can be debated or defined under different critical lenses, however the historic ties between organized hierarchical religious structures and Propaganda, as well as crimes against humanity is a matter of historic record.

Atrocities from the Crusades to the Transatlantic slave trade, to the Spanish inquisition. to the Salem witch trials, to modern satanic panics and transphobic conspiracy theories were and are justified by Christofascist rhetoric. I would venture a guess that other religions have similar histories, but I am not as well-versed on them. What is obvious from even a cursory examination of Power throughout history is that spirituality, while not inherently negative in itself, can be easily weaponised by those who rule in order to control the general populace and oppress outgroups.

If you truly need me to define propaganda for you, then I suppose I can accommodate that. the official definition refers to any argumentative material released by an Organization that seeks to persuade people towards a certain ideological standing, the more negative connotations of being deceptive in some way, emerges from these tactics being deployed by world governments to lie about their enemies, thus shaping popular understanding of the term. This is distinct from Education, the relaying of (theoretically) accurate information to help people understand the world better. In this light, religions are very much propagandists, both in terms of relaying inaccurate information, and in terms of often having ulterior motives for doing so.

As to my statement about humans not being inherently evil by nature, this is a slightly reductive statement I will agree, but again, I was not applying standards of academic rigour before, nor should I have to in such a casual context. But here we go, firstly the category of Ontological evil is already a difficult argument to make when morality is typically built equal parts from the material conditions of a given time and place, and from simple principles that emerge from a logical, naturalistic basis (e.g. killing a peer without cause endangers society as a whole due to instability it introduces to the social contract, as well as removing potential workers towards the tasks needed to sustain the social group under the highly mutualistic structure of human society) As such, talking about inherent human nature as evil often ends up patently absurd, with natural activities (masturbation) labelled as evil, or an imagined sin from a mythic past ascribed to all humanity, judging by what actual sociological researchers have observed in various studies, the typical child, while not "innocent" does not possess some inherent elemental force of "evil" and instead tends to exhibit healthy behaviour for a social species.

In short, Spirituality is not the issue, Hierarchical structures (which many religions fall into) are, in much the same way as corporations and governments give too much power to a small handful of people on top that they often misuse, so to is this true for religion.

My wording sucked so it's entirely my fault that I couldn't get my point across, but my point with the last sentence is me making strong claims about you despite the fact that all I know about you is a few of your posts on MangaDex forums. Same is true with you and "propaganda", "religion", and other concepts you seemed unfamiliar with. This has nothing to do with your "level of intelligence" and to do with you making very strong claims about things that are much more nuanced and you should definitely try and learn more about. Hopefully I do not come off as trying to put you down, if I have, then I'm sorry. The rest of my reply is just stuff I thought might be helpful corrections, but you might have better things to do.
I have 3 points with regards to "christofascist" justifications of atrocity, unless if you mean contemporary justifications and not justifications at the time they happened, then: 1. Fascism did not exist until the 1920's; 2. I have a teeny-bit familiarity with the history of the Transatlantic slave trade and will confidently assert that in English-speaking parts of the Atlantic, the Christian justification of slavery relied on conversion and paternalism that is far removed from anything similar to fascism half-a-century later; 3. studies into the Salem Witch Trials have favored socio-economic or psychological explanations rather than positing that religion played some exceptional role. And just as religion can be weaponized to oppress, it has also been weaponized by those oppressed to fight back against their oppressors. Religion is not a simple "tool" that one side owns as a monopoly but a complex site of competing discourses (it's not just a word video essayists on YouTube use to sound smart, I promise). If you're interested then I highly recommend reading about Olaudah Equiano because his abolitionist work was deeply imbued with religion in a uniquely profound way.
It's also just my opinion, but as an American, I dislike the term "christofascist", because although the two are certainly linked by the religious-right of the last 40-some years in America, I just think it's too similar to the term "islamofascist" which was used as a spurious justification within US mainstream media for continued involvement in the Global War on Terror against a supposed "greater enemy". The last time American liberals tried to solidify accusations of fascism, they worked alongside the very religious-right they now accuse as "christofascists" to support an atrocity they have never apologized for. The term probably has different meanings within Australia, but this is just my of things from within America.
About your definition of propaganda, I find your juxtaposition against education disagreeable. At the same time education tries to improve your understanding of the world, it is also convincing you of an argument or viewpoint it believes is the most valid. In that way, it is not very different from propaganda. But hopefully education should also ask of you to be aware of your viewpoint being one among many and question why you prefer it over the others. Furthermore, most religions aren't feeding you a viewpoint because of some "ulterior motive". Just like any other education than are trying to improve your understanding of the world, just that maybe upon self-examination their flaws might be more apparent, or worse, deny that you self-examine.
Lastly, my disagreement about your "humans not being inherently evil by nature" statement has nothing to do with academic standards. The fault is entirely my own and it's again to do with my shitty wording. My entire point is that humans and demons being friends makes sense given that both are evil by nature within the context of that religious tradition being parodied by a genderswap loli manga. I just thought I looked cool by pointing that out. I have no disagreement with what you said about human nature (if it exists). My over-reaction came from what I thought were unfair aspersions against religions being "propaganda".

 

[leviadragon]

My wording sucked so it's entirely my fault that I couldn't get my point across, but my point with the last sentence is me making strong claims about you despite the fact that all I know about you is a few of your posts on MangaDex forums. Same is true with you and "propaganda", "religion", and other concepts you seemed unfamiliar with. This has nothing to do with your "level of intelligence" and to do with you making very strong claims about things that are much more nuanced and you should definitely try and learn more about. Hopefully I do not come off as trying to put you down, if I have, then I'm sorry. The rest of my reply is just stuff I thought might be helpful corrections, but you might have better things to do.
I have 3 points with regards to "christofascist" justifications of atrocity, unless if you mean contemporary justifications and not justifications at the time they happened, then: 1. Fascism did not exist until the 1920's; 2. I have a teeny-bit familiarity with the history of the Transatlantic slave trade and will confidently assert that in English-speaking parts of the Atlantic, the Christian justification of slavery relied on conversion and paternalism that is far removed from anything similar to fascism half-a-century later; 3. studies into the Salem Witch Trials have favored socio-economic or psychological explanations rather than positing that religion played some exceptional role. And just as religion can be weaponized to oppress, it has also been weaponized by those oppressed to fight back against their oppressors. Religion is not a simple "tool" that one side owns as a monopoly but a complex site of competing discourses (it's not just a word video essayists on YouTube use to sound smart, I promise). If you're interested then I highly recommend reading about Olaudah Equiano because his abolitionist work was deeply imbued with religion in a uniquely profound way.
It's also just my opinion, but as an American, I dislike the term "christofascist", because although the two are certainly linked by the religious-right of the last 40-some years in America, I just think it's too similar to the term "islamofascist" which was used as a spurious justification within US mainstream media for continued involvement in the Global War on Terror against a supposed "greater enemy". The last time American liberals tried to solidify accusations of fascism, they worked alongside the very religious-right they now accuse as "christofascists" to support an atrocity they have never apologized for. The term probably has different meanings within Australia, but this is just my of things from within America.
About your definition of propaganda, I find your juxtaposition against education disagreeable. At the same time education tries to improve your understanding of the world, it is also convincing you of an argument or viewpoint it believes is the most valid. In that way, it is not very different from propaganda. But hopefully education should also ask of you to be aware of your viewpoint being one among many and question why you prefer it over the others. Furthermore, most religions aren't feeding you a viewpoint because of some "ulterior motive". Just like any other education than are trying to improve your understanding of the world, just that maybe upon self-examination their flaws might be more apparent, or worse, deny that you self-examine.
Lastly, my disagreement about your "humans not being inherently evil by nature" statement has nothing to do with academic standards. The fault is entirely my own and it's again to do with my shitty wording. My entire point is that humans and demons being friends makes sense given that both are evil by nature within the context of that religious tradition being parodied by a genderswap loli manga. I just thought I looked cool by pointing that out. I have no disagreement with what you said about human nature (if it exists). My over-reaction came from what I thought were unfair aspersions against religions being "propaganda".

This is an unexpected level of academic rigor, I commend you for it. I was also being reductive when I used the term Christofascist I will admit that. Fascism as a formalised ideology is indeed a relatively recent invention, however, we can still use fascism as a lens of critical analysis to examine different eras of world history. For example, a Fascist reading of the ancient Roman Empire has at least some useful things to say about how fascism is a fairly direct descendent from earlier forms of authoritarianism.

I am also very much aware that religious justifications for slavery, witch hunts, colonialism, etc, etc that were contemporary to those atrocities were often disingenuous pretences for more materialistic motivations, but that still presents a danger to spirituality that cannot simply be disregarded, in that it leaves people more susceptible to certain types of manipulation, irrational blindspots, and grants cover to scoundrels in a way that few other excuses (save patriotism) affords. None of which is to say that religion has Zero utility whatsoever, but that it must be engaged with critically, in full awareness of the risks and limitations.

I am also aware that leftist Christianity was at one time, a strong element of Christianity in the western world, that has not gone away entirely, but between the religious right organizing to dominate the narrative, and genuine leftist thought being squeezed out of public discourse in general, that has left non-conservative Christianity in the position of wishy-washy liberalism, which is not a great place to be when trying to present a mainstream alternative to fascism, as we've seen with the failure of the Democrats to argue any coherent ideology to counter Trump.

As to the use of the term Christofascist, I recognise the uncomfortable parallel with "islamofascist", however the mutation of the religious right within America into something ranging from fascist apologetics and enablers to outright fascists means that term is... accurate more often than I would like. No-one looking at the far-right in America can honestly deny that an authoritarian interpretation/pretence of Christian doctrine is a significant factor to the fascistic takeover of the various arms of government, as to what we label that phenomena? I would rather not get bogged down in semantics, so until a more elegant term emerges, christofascist (christian-sounding justifications for fascism) will remain a label with some utility.

Unfortunately, I will have to push back on your suggestion that (conservative) religious teachings do not possess ulterior motives. From wanting to cultivate guilt and self-loathing to keep people emotionally dependant on the community and hierarchy of a church, to the clear financial incentive of tithing, to the desire to mobilise and control a base of political power in loyal followers who will vote for policies against their economic best interest on the basis of policies to hurt minorities that the flock has been taught to hate, the playbook of taking advantage of churchgoers has been steadily sharpened to a razor's edge since Regan.

This isn't even getting into the "improving your understanding of the world" argument being somewhat laughable in the case of counterfactual dogma that rejects scientific discoveries, yes young earth creationists are a minority within Christianity, but that is not the only counterfactual ideology that is presented as Truth, to say nothing of the implications often made about the role of men and women, the nature of sin, or other talking points that are more philosophical than scientific, but are still, if you will pardon my French, some bullshit. As such, the pejorative meaning of propaganda is very well satisfied in some cases, I personally dearly hope that Christian arguments that I could entirely fairly call propaganda are in the minority... but I fear they might not be.

 

[SuwakosNiceBoat]

Wasn't expecting an in depth argument about human nature and religion in the comment section of a manga about demon x human loli yuri ngl fellas