so im making a character that has powers like kevin from ben 10,for those who dont know,he absorbs material from things he touches and becomes that material,gaining strength and abilities based iff what he absorbed,but i cant think of a good code name for him,ideas please!

Hi Today morning I received a call from this number : (85000-76464). I usually don't pick unsaved numbers but this time I did, after picking up, I heard an automated voice saying this is from the Delhi High Court regarding some violation, press 0 for something and press 1 to talk to talk to the "executive". ( Funny enough the number above was registered from Andhra Pradesh)
I was taken aback and pressed 1 to talk to the executive. He picked up and said he was talking from Delhi Police Station , RK Puram. He said that there was a violation against my mobile number . He asked for my name, which I told him ( in hindsight, i shouldn't have if he has my number and was from federal agency he should have known my name as well) and then he told me to wait for some time and I could hear keyboard keys being pressed. After that he told me that this year January I had an illegal transaction from my *ICICI* bank account. I don't even an ICICI bank account.
Anyways he proceeded to say if within 2hrs I did not pay the fine, all my bank accounts would be blocked. Now I was sure this was a scam. I said to him, okay you block my accounts then I will see. ** He immediately hung up **.
I wanted to abuse that mf so bad but that initial automated voice claiming to be from Delhi High Court did install a slight fear in me. Next time I get a call like this i am going to abuse them so bad, i swear.
Anyways, some points for cyber safety : 1) be ware of picking up unsaved contacts. 2) NO Government Agency will call you and say stuff like this. Usually the first line of action is they will mail to your email / home address regarding what the matter is. 3) Govt agency are never prompt. Stuff like resolve within 2 hrs etc is bullshit. In case of any violation they would easily give you atleast some time.

hi! im new to vtm (new as in i heard about it two days ago and im now obssessed)
so far in my "studies" im kinda realizing that everybody seems to be super evil? dont get me wrong i like it im obssessed with vampires and i loved the idea of vtm, but i just found it funny that the world of darkness is, indeed, full of darkness
i just wanted to hear your opinions! which clan is the worst? and which one seems to have to nicest (not so awful) kindred? ive been thinking about my character and i dont know what clan i should put her in lol
(edit: didnt know how to tag so i put spoiler ? )

Reasons:

• Hasan likes doing accents.
• Cosplay is fun and might be an excuse to collab.
• Many of us have not read The Communist Manifesto.
• Might trigger people that are fun to trigger.
• Could be great footage for Ostonox or other editors to make a banger video

Cosplay Possibilities:

• Stalin: Is Georgian (Basically Turkish), but might be too 'edgy.'
• Lenin: Is bald and dresses better than anyone, but idk how good hasan is at a russian accent (which could make it funnier content).
• Marx Engels: obvious first choices.
• Collabs could be other characters.

MISC notes:

• I would suggest an abridged reading but this dude spends hours talking to a single chatter so fuck that.

Thoughts?

Hello! My name is Daniel... It's a shame for me to have to resort to this but someone hacked my Facebook and made payments from my profile with my credit card. The problem is that I cannot make a complaint from my account since it was suspended because the person who hacked my Facebook unlinked my Instagram account to link another user that I do not know who did not comply with the community standards. The sad thing is that my family business is linked to my personal account, I have had my account for more than 10 years and I have never had any problems on Facebook. Now that this has happened to me, I'm trying to solve it but in order for me to "appeal" I have to log into the Instagram account linked to my profile... How do I log into an account that is not mine and when I search for it it doesn't even exist with the username that appears there? I have tried to find a way to contact Facebook and I find it really impressive that they do not have a support area where a person can assist you since with all their recommended methods I cannot solve this. Is there anyone here who has had something similar happen to them? This situation is really very sad for me, the only thing I want is to recover my account, to remove the suspension since everything was caused by whoever hacked me and to cancel the charge on my credit card so I can continue with the development of my business online family which I want to support my family.

I've made this account to ask this question about a movie I watched about a month ago on a movie site whilst I was half asleep and dozing off. I've tried so hard for hours and hours but I just cannot find the name of it. I'm sure it is a British movie about a alien invasion or UFO invasion perhaps? It doesn't seem to be old, if I had to guess a year I'd say between 2013 - 2023. It also seemed to have a low budget feeling to it and its not a big name. The overall feel of the movie is sci fi or horror with a focus on some kind of invasion or supernatural event, but I'm not entirely sure if its an alien invasion.
Here's the scenes I remember (they definitely happened):

• Around the beginning of the movie, at night time, a woman exits her house from the front door dreaded with fear, I think she then looks around or up at the night sky and a UFO abducts her or flashes some kind of light. I think she might have had blonde hair and she was wearing a cut top that revealed a large portion of her chest.
  
• Later on there is a scene in a big nightclub party with lots of people. There's a female in a dress drinking and some asian origin (pakistani or indian) dude tries flirting with her, she smiles and reluctantly talks but then I think he tries touching her or doing something else, at which point some white dude tells him to back off or push him away, causing a little scene as he goes away.
  

-Right after the previous scene, the same woman, along with another woman and their partners are inside a underground parking lot where they are talking with each other. The two couples seem to be trying to agree to something or warn each other about some impending doom or danger perhaps?

• Shortly afterwards, both couples are in the same house/building and a scene plays where both couples are having sex in different rooms. One couple seem to be fierce and indulging in it heavily, whereas I think the other were a bit lackluster and motivated. Perhaps I'm wrong and the other didn't do anything at all.

These are sadly the only scenes I remember as I was half asleep and dozed off. I've been wanting to watch the rest of it so badly but I just cannot find its name.
*NOTE*: I may be wrong about the alien/ufo invasion, perhaps it was a war or something, but I'm sure the poster of the movie and name revolved around it.
I've already ruled out movies such as invasion planet earth, attack the block, under the skin, storage 24, comedown, the incident etc. The way I found the movie in the first place is funny, I was on this site called AZnude which is for explicit scenes from movies and TV shows as this TV show I watch didn't feature these deleted scenes, and thats when I came across it. I think at the bottom of the page it shows suggested actresses or something and I clicked on some random one, then her works showed up and thats when the scenes from this movie appeared, however instead of showing just explicit scene it showed like 12 minutes from the movie which seemed real interesting and thats why I was interested to watch the rest of it.
The postelook of the movie had similar feeling to invasion planet earth, alien conquest 2021 etc.

I've made this account to ask this question about a movie I watched about a month ago on a movie site whilst I was half asleep and dozing off. I've tried so hard for hours and hours but I just cannot find the name of it. I'm sure it is a British movie about a alien invasion or UFO invasion perhaps? It doesn't seem to be old, if I had to guess a year I'd say between 2013 - 2023. It also seemed to have a low budget feeling to it and its not a big name. The overall feel of the movie is sci fi or horror with a focus on some kind of invasion or supernatural event, but I'm not entirely sure if its an alien invasion.
Here's the scenes I remember (they definitely happened):

• Around the beginning of the movie, at night time, a woman exits her house from the front door dreaded with fear, I think she then looks around or up at the night sky and a UFO abducts her or flashes some kind of light. I think she might have had blonde hair and she was wearing a cut top that revealed a large portion of her chest.
  
• Later on there is a scene in a big nightclub party with lots of people. There's a female in a dress drinking and some asian origin (pakistani or indian) dude tries flirting with her, she smiles and reluctantly talks but then I think he tries touching her or doing something else, at which point some white dude tells him to back off or push him away, causing a little scene as he goes away.
  

-Right after the previous scene, the same woman, along with another woman and their partners are inside a underground parking lot where they are talking with each other. The two couples seem to be trying to agree to something or warn each other about some impending doom or danger perhaps?

• Shortly afterwards, both couples are in the same house/building and a scene plays where both couples are having sex in different rooms. One couple seem to be fierce and indulging in it heavily, whereas I think the other were a bit lackluster and motivated. Perhaps I'm wrong and the other didn't do anything at all.

These are sadly the only scenes I remember as I was half asleep and dozed off. I've been wanting to watch the rest of it so badly but I just cannot find its name.
*NOTE*: I may be wrong about the alien/ufo invasion, perhaps it was a war or something, but I'm sure the poster of the movie and name revolved around it.
I've already ruled out movies such as invasion planet earth, attack the block, under the skin, storage 24, comedown, the incident etc. The way I found the movie in the first place is funny, I was on this site called AZnude which is for explicit scenes from movies and TV shows as this TV show I watch didn't feature these deleted scenes, and thats when I came across it. I think at the bottom of the page it shows suggested actresses or something and I clicked on some random one, then her works showed up and thats when the scenes from this movie appeared, however instead of showing just explicit scene it showed like 12 minutes from the movie which seemed real interesting and thats why I was interested to watch the rest of it.
The postelook of the movie had similar feeling to invasion planet earth, alien conquest 2021 etc.

Johann Gottlieb Fichte

19 May 1762 – 29 January 1814
J. G. Fichte and a priori Providentialism
Part of a Series on the Philosophy of History
Sunday 19 May 2024 is the 262nd anniversary of the birth of Johann Gottlieb Fichte (19 May 1762 – 29 January 1814), who was born in Rammenau, Saxony, then part of the Holy Roman Empire, on this day in 1762.
Fichte is often remembered in histories of philosophy as an immediate successor to Kant in the German idealist tradition. While still a young man Fichte wrote and anonymously published Attempt at a Critique of All Revelation. This was in 1792 when Fichte was 30 years old. Many believed that Kant had written this work, given Kant’s earlier critiques of pure reason, practical reason, and judgment, so when Kant denied authorship and identified Fichte as the actual author, Fichte experienced the philosophical equivalent of being an overnight sensation.
But Fichte’s life was an unsheltered as Kant’s life was sheltered. He was a born trouble-maker and was willing to touch the third rail of Enlightenment politics by writing and speaking openly about matters of religion, as revealed by his work on revelation. Fichte is sometimes called inflexible and rigid, though we could also say (a little more charitably) that he was principled and not inclined to compromise. Partly as a result of this temperament, Fichte became embroiled in a controversy in German intellectual life remembered as the Atheismusstriet, or Atheism Controversy.
During this controversy Friedrich Jacobi published an open letter against Fichte in which Jacobi coined the term “nihilism” to describe what he took to be Fichte’s position:

“Truly, my dear Fichte, I would not be vexed if you, or anyone else, were to call Chimerism the view I oppose to the Idealism that I chide for Nihilism. I have paraded my not-knowing in all my writings; in my non-knowledge I have prided myself so to be with knowledge, so perfectly and completely, that I am certainly allowed to be contemptuous of the mere doubter.—I have wrestled for truth with zeal and fervour since childhood as few others; as few others have I experienced my powerlessness—and my heart has grown tender for that—yea, very tender, my dear Fichte—and my voice so gentle! Just as I have deep compassion for myself, as human being, so I have it for others. I am patient without effort; but that I am truly patient without effort costs me a lot. The earth will be light above me—it won’t be long.”

Nihilism was to go on to have quite a career as an idea after Jacobi’s letter. While for Jacobi, the nihilism he attributed to Fichte was the inevitable outcome of reason, nihilism did not remain centered on Jacobi’s critique of Kantian philosophy, but came to signify belief in nothing at all.
Fichte’s controversial stance created a problem for the authorities at the University of Jena, where Fichte was employed at the time. Fichte wouldn’t budge, and this was one of the episodes responsible for his reputation for inflexibility, so the University of Jena dismissed him in 1799. At this point, with little to his name and few prospects, Fichte walked from Jena to Berlin—Google Maps says it takes 55 hours to complete this walk—and eventually he became part of the philosophical scene in Berlin.
Fichte attempted, semi-successfully, to support himself with popular books and lectures. For a philosopher coming from a background of Kantian philosophy—the most technical philosophy of its day—this was a bold project, but he gamely attempted to bring his interpretation of Kantianism to the masses. One of the outcomes of this effort was Fichte’s short book The Vocation of Man (1800). Fichte’s academic work was riddled with jargon, but The Vocation of Man is written in plain language and was intended for a popular audience. However, it’s still a demanding philosophical argument. In it, Fichte articulated a conception of human destiny that is universalistic, rationalistic, teleological, and even infinitistic:

“Let us not ask of history if man, on the whole, have yet become purely moral. To a more extended, comprehensive, energetic freedom he has certainly attained; but hitherto it has been an almost necessary result of his position, that this freedom has been applied chiefly to evil purposes. Neither let us ask whether the aesthetic and intellectual culture of the ancient world, concentrated on a few points, may not have excelled in degree that of modern times! It might happen that we should receive a humiliating answer, and that in this respect the human race has not advanced, but rather seemed to retrograde, in its riper years. But let us ask of history at what period the existing culture has been most widely diffused, and distributed among the greatest number of individuals; and we shall doubtless find that from the beginning of history down to our own day, the few light-points of Civilization have spread themselves abroad from their centre, that one individual after another, and one nation after another, has been embraced within their circle, and that this wider outspread of culture is proceeding under our own eyes. And this is the first point to be attained in the endless path on which humanity must advance.”

Notice that Fichte implies a distinction between two kinds of progress: there is progress toward the highest degree of excellence, and here humanity may have backslid, but there is also progress toward broadly distributed high culture, and here Fichte thinks that his time definitely surpassed previous history. Fichte also says that progress, by which he means moral progress, is an endless path, and we have already seen that it is possible for humanity to experience retrograde moral progress, so the pathway to man becoming purely moral, as Fichte sees it, is endless, it can incorporate reversals, and it can be striving to new heights or to wider diffusion.
This and many other passages point to the infinite perfectibility of man, which shows us the extent to which Fichte had imbibed the ideals of the French Revolution—or, we might say, he had imbibed the ideals of the French philosophers who were instrumental in laying the foundations of the French revolution, and were later arguably co-opted by the revolution, as in the case of Condorcet, who wrote this paean to the infinite perfectibility of man while on the run from the revolutionary gendarme. But the infinite perfectibility of man as Fichte imagines it is a teleology with a real history: things can go wrong, we can get sidetracked, we might pursue one form of moral excellence or another, and so on.
And Fichte also transmuted the French concept of the infinite perfectibility of man in the image of German idealism, producing a kind of philosophical spiritualism. Part of this transmutation of ideals came about because of the direction that Fichte saw the French revolution take as it developed. Many philosophers at the time initially supported the ideals of the French Revolution, but came to see it in a different light after the Terror and the Napoleonic Wars. Fichte as well.
Seeking to rally his countrymen after defeats inflicted by Napoleon, Fichte gave a series of public lectures later published as Addresses to the German Nation. This was more than a half century before the unification of Germany as a nation-state. In the twentieth century this work was savaged by George Santayana in his book Egotism in German Philosophy, which I mentioned in my episode on Wars and Rumors of Wars. Santayana called Fichte “an uncompromising puritan” and in Santayana’s fever dream of German expansionism he imagined Fichte as the source of it all:

“…Fichte gives us prophetic glimpses of an idealistic Germany conquering the world. The state does not aim at self-preservation, still less is it concerned to come to the aid of those members of the human family that lag behind the movement of the day. The dominion of unorganised physical force must be abolished by a force obedient to reason and spirit. True life consists in refashioning human relations after a model innate in the mind. The glorious destiny of Germany is to bring forth and establish the world anew. Natural freedom is a disgraceful thing, a mere medley of sensual and intellectual impulses without any principle of order. It is for the Germans to decide whether a providential progress exists by becoming themselves the providence that shall bring progress about, or whether on the contrary every higher thought is folly. If they should fail, history would never blame them, for in that case there would be no more history.”

Many others also have seen Fichte’s work through the lens of the wars of their time, which were the world wars of the twentieth century, rather than through the lens of the wars of Fichte’s time, which were the Napoleonic Wars.
Fichte knew that he was putting his life on the line by publicly speaking out against the French, as he at one time referenced the fate of Johann Philipp Palm. Palm, a book seller, was connected to a pamphlet, Germany in Its Deep Humiliation (Deutschland in seiner tiefsten Erniedrigung), that angered Napoleon. Napoleon ordered his subordinates to try and execute Palm within twenty-four hours. Palm was tried on 26 August 1806 by a French military tribunal, found guilty, and shot within hours of the verdict. Four other book sellers also were tried were not executed. Fichte knew that the same thing could happen to him in publicly speaking out on behalf of the German people. We can see from incidents such as this that Fichte was in the thick of the history of his own time, sometimes riding the wave and sometimes making waves.
Roberta Picardi notes both the derivation and dependence of Fichte’s views from Kant, as well as Fichte’s divergence from Kant:

“Fichte explores the epistemic status and method of history with an aim which is clearly taken from Kant: the purpose of introducing a systematic and scientific method in the infinite field of the empiricism, of which history is a part, together with experimental physics. As we can read in The Characteristics of the Present Age he wants to obtain ‘a sure progress according to rule instead of an uncertain groping in the dark’ from history, i. e., instead of the ‘Herumptappen’ (this is the German word for ‘groping’) that in the second Preface to the Critique of Pure Reason Kant contrasts with the ‘secure path of a science’.”

But the secure path of science isn’t always all that secure, given that there are multiple scientific pathways, and not all pathways lead to the same end. This is the distinction within Fichte’s philosophy of history noted by Angelica Nuzzo:

“Fichte builds his idea of a philosophy of history upon a paradoxical argument. He pushes to the extreme the claim of the bare factual nature of history as a realm of irrational, not-conceptual, and thoroughly contingent reality. Yet he also maintains that philosophical knowledge of history is possible—although neither as deductive, nor conceptual, nor genetic knowledge. Against the fictitious notion of historical Wahrscheinlichkeit (plausibility, probability), Fichte holds on to the notion of ‘historical truth’ and to its ‘logic.’ Despite its radically empirical character, history can be construed a priori.”

Some of the flavor of Fichte’s a priori approach to history can be gained from his primary work on the philosophy of history Characteristics of the Present Age (Der Grundzüge des gegewärtigen Zeitalters, 1806), in which he decomposes history into Five Principal Epochs, based not on historical contingencies, but rather upon human destiny and moral development:

“…we endeavoured to pre-figure the whole Earthly Life of Man by a comprehension of its purpose;— to perceive why our Race had to begin its Existence here, and by this means to describe the whole present Life of humankind:—this is what we wished to do,—it was our first task. There are, according to this view, Five Principal Epochs of Earthly Life, each of which, although taking its rise in the life of the individual, must yet, in order to become an Epoch in the Life of the Race, gradually lay hold of and interpenetrate all Men; and to that end must endure throughout long periods of time, so that the great Whole of Life is spread out into Ages, which sometimes seem to cross, sometimes to run parallel with each other:—1st, The Epoch of the unlimited dominion of Reason as Instinct: —the State of Innocence of the Human Race. 2nd, The Epoch in which Reason as Instinct is changed into an external ruling Authority;—the Age of positive Systems of life and doctrine, which never go back to their ultimate foundations, and hence have no power to convince but on the contrary merely desire to compel, and which demand blind faith and unconditional obedience:—the State of progressive Sin. 3rd, The Epoch of Liberation,—directly from the external ruling Authority—indirectly from the power of Reason as Instinct, and generally from Reason in any form;—the Age of absolute indifference towards all truth, and of entire and unrestrained licentiousness:—the State of completed Sinfulness. 4th, The Epoch of Reason as Knowledge;—the Age in which Truth is looked upon as the highest, and loved before all other things:—the State of progressive Justification. 5th, The Epoch of Reason as Art;—the Age in which Humanity with more sure and unerring hand builds itself up into a fitting image and representative of Reason:—the State of completed Justification and Sanctification. Thus, the whole progress which, upon this view, Humanity makes here below, is only a retrogression to the point on which it stood at first, and has nothing in view save that return to its original condition. But Humanity must make this journey on its own feet; by its own strength it must bring itself back to that state in which it was once before without its own coöperation, and which, for that very purpose, it must first of all leave.”

We can call Fichte’s Five Principal Epochs a “stadial” philosophy of history, since “stadial” refers to stages. In this passage we gain an appreciation of the necessity of the five stages of history as a developmental process that cannot be gotten around: there is no royal road to the end of the history.
In the Second Lecture from Fichte’s Some Lectures Concerning the Scholar’s Vocation, he makes explicit both the a priori developmental history of humanity and the utopian picture of the ultimate end of human development:

“…a very great man has said, life in the state is not one of man’s absolute aims. The state is, instead, only a means for establishing a perfect society, a means which exists only under specific circumstances. Like all those human institutions which are mere means, the state aims at abolishing itself. The goal of all government is to make government superfluous. Though the time has certainly not yet come, nor do I know how many myriads or myriads of myriads of years it may take (here we are not at all concerned with applicability in life, but only with justifying a speculative proposition), there will certainly be a point in the a priori foreordained career of the human species when all civic bonds will become superfluous.”

The editor says in a footnote that the “great man” mentioned was probably an allusion to Kant’s Idea of History from a Cosmopolitan Point of View. We saw in my episode on Kant how Kant saw the teleology of humanity as establishing the perfect civil constitution, though I also speculated that, if we take Kant’s later writings on history in the context of his early pre-critical work on natural history, this Kantian teleology for humanity is nested within a larger cosmological teleology. By my reading, then, Kant is actually the more naturalistic position, while Fichte is the more anthropocentric, and his ideal is a purely spiritual ideal, even an a priori idea. For example, Fichte isn’t in the least interested to even give an estimate of the period of time that will be required for humanity to abolish all government, but he only points out that this is the ultimate end.
Marx also predicted the withering away of the state after communism had been achieved, and Marx, too, emphasized definite stages in human development that would lead to this outcome. With Kant, Fichte, and Marx all predicting the end of formal human governments we might take this prediction as a distinctive feature of a certain class of philosophies of history. Toynbee, too, saw not exactly the end of the state, but the end of universal civilizations, which would cede their place to universal churches, which sounds to me a lot like Kant, Fichte, and Marx anticipating the ultimate abolition of government in a perfect society.
This we can understand as a kind of inverse teleology, in which it is not (or not only) the advent of some future eventuality that is foreseen, but the abolition of some present state-of-affairs in the future as the goal of human development. For Kant, Fichte, Marx, and Toynbee, there is a dual teleological movement, in which some novel state-of-affairs is to unfold, while a present state of affairs is to give way and disappear as the new order comes to replace it. We could call this a stadial philosophy of history, but it is as much a substitutional philosophy of history: one social order is substituted for another; familiar institutions are to be replaced by novel institutions that take their place.
As far as the new institutions are expected to be an improvement over the old, this is also a melioristic philosophy of history. All progressivist philosophies of history are also melioristic, but we can distinguish between gradualistic meliorism, in which iterated reform eventually converges on a perfect society, which could be a finite or an infinitistic process, and stadial meliorism, in which there is a replacement rather than reform of a social order, and this replacement is an improvement.
For a non-stadial, non-teleological philosophy of history, we can turn to Leopold von Ranke, who was critical of Fichte’s five epochs:

“One of the ideas with which philosophy again and again confronts history as an irrefutable claim is that mankind is on an uninterrupted road to progress, in a steady development toward perfection. Fichte, one of the foremost philosophers in this field, assumes five epochs, a world plan as he says – reason ruling through instinct, reason ruling through law, emancipation from the authority of reason, reason as science, and reason as art. If this or a similar scheme were to any extent true, then general history would have to follow the road of progress which the human race followed in the indicated direction from one age to the next. The sole subject matter of history would then be the development of such concepts as they appear and manifest themselves in the world of phenomena. But this is by no means the case. For one thing, the philosophers themselves have extraordinarily varied opinions about the nature and selection of these supposedly ruling ideas. But they very wisely focus only on a few peoples in world history while considering the lives of all the rest as nothing, as a mere supplement. Otherwise it could not be hidden for a moment that from the beginning to this day the peoples of the world have been in the most varied conditions.”

We saw earlier that Fichte by no means argued for an uninterrupted road to progress, but we can set that aside as being of secondary importance. The antagonism between Fichte and Ranke runs deeper. Ranke is often associated with the emergence of historicism, and sometimes he is identified as the source of historicism. Ranke even was willing to express his historicism in theological terms when we said that all ages are equidistant from God. With this view of history as consisting of co-equal periods each with their own integrity it would be difficult, though not impossible, to argue for progress. In Characteristics of the Present Age Fichte rejects the view that an age can be assessed on its own terms:

“Should our view of the Present Age prove to have been a view taken from the standing-point of this Age itself, should the eye which has taken this view have been itself a product of the Age which it has surveyed, then has the Age borne witness to itself and such testimony must be set aside.”

Fichte, then, needs some criterion for his view of the present age other than the present age itself, and he finds it in religion:

“…what has been the nature of this theory, considered in its essential elements, and to what chief department of human thought it has belonged? I answer:—It was a Religious Theory; all our contemplations were Religious contemplations, and our view of things, and the eye which embraced that view, were Religious.”

Fichte goes one better and actually gives a definition of religion in the next paragraph:

“RELIGION consists in regarding and recognising all Earthly Life as a necessary development of the one, original, perfectly good and perfectly blessed Divine Life.”

Both Ranke and Fichte, then, invoke theological sanction for their conception of history, though this conception is starkly different, with Ranke taking each age to be sufficient unto itself, and no less related to the divine than any other age, while Fichte took each age to be dependent upon a larger framework for its meaning. While Ranke the historian insists on the individual uniqueness of each age, while Fichte the philosopher sees each age in relation to the whole of which it is a part. It is the task of Fichte’s Characteristics of the Present Age to provide for his contemporaries this larger framework so that they can understand their place in history, which for Fichte means understanding their place in the moral development of humanity.
Even Fichte’s conception of religion and moral development is strikingly abstract, as we find a little further on in the last chapter of Characteristics of the Present Age: “…Religion is nothing external,—it never clothes itself in any outward manifestation.” And, “…True Religion does not manifest itself outwardly, and does not impel man to any course of external conduct which he would not otherwise have adopted, but that it only completes his true Inward Being and dignity.” This is not necessary an orthodox position, and we’ve already seen how Fichte got himself in trouble with authorities with his views on religion.
It would seem strange to call Fichte’s philosophy of history a providential philosophy of history, as it seems to have little in common with, say, St. Augustine, but by Fichte’s own account, his is a pervasively religious perspective, and his philosophy of history is an account of humanity’s progress toward moral perfection. This progress is a purely inward fulfillment, without any observational consequences, again, by Fichte’s own account. I’ve run into this view in one other thinker, and that is Simone Weil. In my episode on Weil I quoted her criticism of providentialism of a kind that I called vulgar providentialism:

“Divine Providence is not a disturbing influence, an anomaly in the ordering of the world; it is itself the order of the world; or rather it is the regulating principle of this universe. It is eternal Wisdom, unique, spread across the whole universe in a sovereign network of relations.”

I think Fichte would have agreed with this, and with the examples of both Fichte and Weil we can see that there is a place within the conceptual space of philosophy of history for what we could call a pure providential philosophy of history, or, if you like, an a priori providentialism.
Ranke’s criticism of Fichte is predicated upon the necessity of a vulgar providentialism that is reflected in the empirical world. But if, as Fichte said, religion is nothing external, and it does not impel man to any course of external conduct, neither should it impel any course of external conduct on the world. This also resolves the paradoxical argument that Angelica Nuzzo found at the heart of Fichte’s philosophy of history, since the bare factual nature of history can be distinguished from the providentialism that can be construed a priori.

Video Presentation

https://youtu.be/T8eIxZi0LrM
https://www.instagram.com/p/C7LPoSKNdPB/
https://odysee.com/@Geopolicraticus:7/j.-g.-fichte-and-a-priori:6

Podcast Edition

https://spotifyanchor-web.app.link/e/73G2BY64JJb
https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/a31b8276-53cd-4723-b6ad-a39c8faa4572/episodes/306a6446-d4d7-4e24-a447-c89fd310d7a2/today-in-philosophy-of-history-j-g-fichte-and-a-priori-providentialism
https://www.iheart.com/podcast/269-today-in-philosophy-of-his-146507578/episode/j-g-fichte-and-a-priori-177816272/
​

Hey everyone! I’ve got one lantern press postcard that features a specific location mentioned in the Twilight movie saga. I generally consider “twilight” season in the fall, but I just picked this one up last weekend while visiting WA, and would love to send it out to a twilight fan. To make this a little more interesting, in order to claim, you’ll have to guess the location the card features (again it is named in the movies). No limit on guesses! Flaired users only please :)

Blocktrade is an European crypto platform based out of Estonia that offers the most popular coins on the market, allowing users to easily buy and sell. They support bank and card deposits.
Sign up reward
Currently they're offering a €10 reward to new users who deposit €100 with a credit/debit card or bank transfer and buy a minimum of €100 worth of any cryptocurrency. The €10 is added instantly.
The offer is available worldwide with the exception of the USA and these countries.

STEPS

1. Click here to DM me & type $bid in the comments
   
2. Sign up and deposit at least €100
   
3. Buy at least €100 worth of any coin
   
4. The reward should added instantly and I'll send you my share
   
5. You're free to sell or withdraw the crypto
   

-> Terms -> Fees
Check out other easy crypto offers:

NAME	REWARD	LINK
LUNO	€75	Click here
BRIGHTY	$30	Click here
BLOCKTRADE	€17	Click here

So, I (31F) matched with this guy on Bumble, and he seemed nice—really great to talk to. He’s from the same area, so we planned to meet up for coffee. I was super excited because it’s been a while since I went out on a date and felt that kind of excitement.
Everything was going well until he asked me what phone I use. I didn’t think much of it and told him I use an Oppo and have a Samsung as a backup. Little did I know, that was our last conversation.
Two days later, I asked him what was wrong and if I had said something to upset him because he seemed off. I didn’t expect a reply, but I was shocked when he said that Android users are a big ick for him. He claimed it wasn’t me, just that the whole Android thing is a turn-off.
This guy is 30, and I can’t believe a grown man would say something like that. It’s not that I can’t afford an iPhone, but I just prefer Android. It’s funny but also slightly insulting. What’s the big deal if I use an Android phone?

WAR
A few days later my phone buzz-chirped. I opened my messages to find several pics of Dennis' Jeep, a blurry mess of lights, and a final shot of Dennis leaning back in the driver's seat with his eyes closed and his junk out and at attention. And there was a caption.
"Consider us EVEN."
I saw red. The possibility of finding peaceful contentment with Whisky was a distant memory. A figment of my imagination. I wanted blood. I wanted to slap Mary's fat fucking face senseless. I wanted to rat her out to Chuck. I was livid. Angry heat spread from my sternum to my shoulders, and the sharp sting of wrath radiated through my being. I rang Mary.
Mary: How does it feel, bitch?
I couldn't make words. I was shaking. My head was spinning. All I could muster was a meek little, "Why???"
Mary: You owed me.
Me: Mary, I'm not screwing Whiskers. And how did you even FIND Dennis? Do you even LIKE him?
Mary: Totes! He's soooooo cute! We banged it out five or six times in his car, and then he told me to lie down in the parking lot. And then he pissed all over my titties! It was soooo hot!
Me: I don't believe you. Dennis is into some pervy-ass shit. But not piss.
Mary: Well, he told me you were too vanilla to do anything fun.
Me: YEAH. I didn't wanna get butt-blasted without a rubber by a guy who couldn't even be bothered to show up when we had plans. That's not being vanilla. That's having self-respect.
Mary: Guys don't like girls who make a big deal about self-respect. It's a major turn-off. That's why I get so much more boom-boom than you do. Hey! Now that we're done fighting, you can pick me up and take me out for sushi! I'll teach you how to make men happy and then you'll owe me dinner. I obviously pleased Dennis when you couldn't.
Words failed me yet again. I shouted a much, much filthier version of, "GO SCREW," hung up on her, put on my sneakers, and ran aimlessly through my neighborhood until I almost collapsed. Once I trudged back home, I smoked a shit-ton of cigarettes and drank a shit-ton of vodka (for me, which was like... three shots) and really did collapse.
Up to this point, I felt like I had been patient with Mary. More patient than she deserved. I probably hadn’t done her any favors by allowing her to behave like a fucking maniac while I did nothing more than gently suggesting alternative behaviors. I still wanted to have faith in her ability to grow (emotionally). But all of that came crashing down. For some reason, my formerly improved sense of self-respect crashed as well...
I texted Whisky, planned to meet him at his townhouse, and successfully banged him. It was absolutely a hate bang even though I didn't hate Whisky at all (yet). I'd never engaged in hate-fueled intimacy before. I didn't realize those two states could co-exist like that. As reluctant as I am to admit it, it was cathartic. And it was also admittedly unfair to Whisky because he had no idea what was happening. I had just used him to make myself feel marginally better about a guy I guess I still had some kind of feelings for.
In case I've been unclear, I'm fully acknowledging that my actions were immature, inconsiderate, and indefensible. Don't bang somebody just because you're mad at somebody else, kids. Nobody wins. Well, it might feel like winning for a short time. It's NOT. It's bad behavior. And I absolutely hold myself accountable. Did I deserve to get verbally abused by the psycho neckbeard lurking behind the mask of the man I’d just hate-banged? No. Unequivocally, NO. But would Whisky have been well within his rights to dump me in a spectacular fashion if he’d realized what I was doing in that moment? Abso-freakin-lutely. Hell, I would have totally deserved it if he’d booted me out of his house butt-naked and screamed insults from the window. An isolated hurling of insults is not the same thing as chronic verbal maltreatment within the context of a relationship. But that's a serious topic that feels out of place in this story.
So instead of calling me on my crap and giving my butt the boot, Whisky remained oblivious to what was going on in my misguided mind and took the hate bang to mean that our relationship had just gone to the next level. And he became even sweeter and more affectionate towards me. This made my skin crawl because all my feelings for Dennis (both good and bad) had just come flooding back with a vengeance. I had no idea what to do with them. Part of me wanted Dennis to hug me and apologize. Part of me wanted to punch him in the dick. Part of me wanted Whisky to hug me and assure me that I had value as a human being even if some Golden God hadn’t chosen me to be his partner. And then part of me wanted to snap at Whisky every time he touched me. "You're NOT the one I want, Asshat!!!!!!!"
But the truth was... I didn't really want Dennis anymore. I mean... I wanted him in theory, but I didn't want the real version. He was a flake. He was nasty. I couldn't wrap my head around his inconsistent, albeit devout, spiritual beliefs. He was indeed a braggadocious butthead. I suspected that he wasn't even a very nice person beneath his affable veneer. Even so, I was irrationally irate with Mary for deliberately stalking him and seducing him. Did she really think that would make me look at my relationship with Whisky differently? I hadn't stalked him. I hadn't even pursued him. In fact, I'd rejected him several times (albeit not out of respect for Mary). How are these two situations alike??? What am I failing to see here??? Maybe I was the villain. I certainly wasn't innocent. But neither was Mary.
I mean... Mary was friggin’ MARRIED. And she'd been going around blabbing indelicately about all her supremely nasty boom-boom (whether real or fabricated) with Whiskers, Scumbanger, Tech Guy, Artistic Director, and the Hoggs. How the living, breathing, God-forsaken FUCK had she decided that she was entitled to sexy time with my (former?) crush just because I was dating ONE of the innumerable guys she’d stalked once upon a time???? Gaaaahhhhhhhhh!
And then it got even worse. Dennis was almost finished with his graduate program and was planning to move to New York that summer, while I still had another two years to go (counting the internship). But we both worked in the Neuropharmacology Lab that semester, so I still had to see him every week. Even though nothing had happened between us in a long, long time, I never knew if Dennis was going acknowledge my presence or look right through me. The power of invisibility isn't all it's cracked up ti be. But the next time I saw him, following the Mary tryst, he very deliberately approached me and said in an almost apologetic tone, "Val? Can we please talk after lab?" I nodded.
He asked me to get in his car, but I couldn't stand the thought of sitting in the ghost of Mary's snail trail. I insisted that we sit in my car, and he didn't protest. The familiar scent of mandarins and mountain air wafted through my Prius as I steeled myself for a confrontation.
Dennis: I think your friend stalked me...
Me: The crazy bitch with the big boobs?
Dennis: Yeah... She messaged me on Facebook and she was talking like you'd told her about me and thought we should hang out. I said we should call you and invite you to come along, but she said you had a boyfriend. Do you have a boyfriend?
Me: I'm dating someone. But what does it matter?
Dennis: Oh. I guess it doesn't. Anyway, I met her at this 24-hour diner. She drank like... ten beers even though I told her I don't drink. She kept talking about her cat or something...
Me: Whiskers?
Dennis: Yeah.
Me: That's a guy. She used to have a thing for him.
Dennis: That’s a guy’s name??? Weird. Well, anyway... She got all sloppy and literally started doing mouth stuff to me under the table.
My stomach turned and my blood boiled. "I don't need to hear that. She already told me all about your night. She sent me pictures of your dick and she told me how you peed on her in the parking lot."
Dennis: She said I WHAT??? Babe! Er. Um. Val! I would never do that.
I gave him a skeptical stare.
Dennis: Hand to God! I didn't pee on her. But, wait... She took pictures of my stuff???
I took out my phone and showed him the pic. Dennis blushed ferociously and looked away. Finally, he said quietly, "I'm so ashamed of myself."
I sighed. "You're always ashamed of yourself. That's why I stopped fooling around with you. It felt like you were ashamed of me, too."
Dennis: Babe! No. I just have to get right with God.
Me: Well, have you talked to God about Mary?
Dennis: I'm not ready for that one yet. I feel dirty. Like... dirtier than usual.
Me: Well, now I feel kind of guilty. She's mad at me because I'm dating a guy she used to have a crush on. She went after you because she knew I used to have a crush on you.
Dennis: You had a crush on me??? For real?
At first, I scoffed (thinking he was being sarcastic). Then I looked at his wide eyes and realized that he might have actually been that clueless.
Me: Yes, Dennis. I massively had a crush on you. You knew that. But I was apparently too vanilla for you, according to Mary.
Dennis: What??? Babe! I never said you were vanilla. I said you were classier than her.
Me: Well... Thank you? If that really is what you said to her, I appreciate that.
Dennis (striking his version of a smoldering pose): So. Uh... You still have a crush on me?
Me: I think I'll always wonder what could have been if we were each just... slightly different people. But I had to move on. I knew you didn't like me in that way, and it wasn't fair to either of us.
Dennis: Well, for what it's worth, I wish it had been your mouth the other night.
I finally smiled a little bit. I wished the same thing. But I didn't say that out loud.

Oddly enough, having that somewhat respectful, somewhat reassuring conversation with Dennis quelled my anger at Mary... a little. Don't get me wrong; I was still pissed and I never let her get close to me again after that. But I also never made a big, dramatic show of telling her off. In my mind, that would have invited more unnecessary drama. By tacitly distancing myself and henceforth keeping her at arm's length, she wasn't able to freak out over anything and I was able to keep her out of my business.
Years and years later, even now that Mary is a functional person with a healthy BMI, and much better manners (most of the time), she is still wont to bring up her tryst with Dennis. While I genuinely applaud her for putting in the work and making some sensible changes, I'll never be super buddy-buddy with her again. The fact that she still throws Dennis in my face to this very day makes me suspect that there remains a touch of cray in her gray matter.
And where Whisky was concerned, I had finally felt some sense of closure with Dennis after the aforementioned talk. So I leaned into a new relationship. And it was fine at first. Not super hot, but also not super weird. Having learned from my disgusting mistake, I know that I tend to get tempted to speculate about incredibly offensive crap regarding Funky Whisky whenever his behavior is unremarkable and not in keeping with the delightfully repulsive tone that this audience tends to enjoy. So I'll end this chapter here. In the next proper installment, I'll finally shed some light on The Goblinization. But before I wrap things up, I need to write a one-off about The Pie Guy and bring back some classic cringe!

I've made this account to ask this question about a movie I watched about a month ago on a movie site whilst I was half asleep and dozing off. I've tried so hard for hours and hours but I just cannot find the name of it. I'm sure it is a British movie about a alien invasion or UFO invasion perhaps? It doesn't seem to be old, if I had to guess a year I'd say between 2013 - 2023. It also seemed to have a low budget feeling to it and its not a big name. The overall feel of the movie is sci fi or horror with a focus on some kind of invasion or supernatural event, but I'm not entirely sure if its an alien invasion.
Here's the scenes I remember (they definitely happened):

• Around the beginning of the movie, at night time, a woman exits her house from the front door dreaded with fear, I think she then looks around or up at the night sky and a UFO abducts her or flashes some kind of light. I think she might have had blonde hair and she was wearing a cut top that revealed a large portion of her chest.
  
• Later on there is a scene in a big nightclub party with lots of people. There's a female in a dress drinking and some asian origin (pakistani or indian) dude tries flirting with her, she smiles and reluctantly talks but then I think he tries touching her or doing something else, at which point some white dude tells him to back off or push him away, causing a little scene as he goes away.
  

-Right after the previous scene, the same woman, along with another woman and their partners are inside a underground parking lot where they are talking with each other. The two couples seem to be trying to agree to something or warn each other about some impending doom or danger perhaps?

• Shortly afterwards, both couples are in the same house/building and a scene plays where both couples are having sex in different rooms. One couple seem to be fierce and indulging in it heavily, whereas I think the other were a bit lackluster and motivated. Perhaps I'm wrong and the other didn't do anything at all.

These are sadly the only scenes I remember as I was half asleep and dozed off. I've been wanting to watch the rest of it so badly but I just cannot find its name.
*NOTE*: I may be wrong about the alien/ufo invasion, perhaps it was a war or something, but I'm sure the poster of the movie and name revolved around it.
I've already ruled out movies such as invasion planet earth, attack the block, under the skin, storage 24, comedown, the incident etc. The way I found the movie in the first place is funny, I was on this site called AZnude which is for explicit scenes from movies and TV shows as this TV show I watch didn't feature these deleted scenes, and thats when I came across it. I think at the bottom of the page it shows suggested actresses or something and I clicked on some random one, then her works showed up and thats when the scenes from this movie appeared, however instead of showing just explicit scene it showed like 12 minutes from the movie which seemed real interesting and thats why I was interested to watch the rest of it.
The postelook of the movie had similar feeling to invasion planet earth, alien conquest 2021 etc.

I've been thinking about this for a while but, given the fact there's eventually going to be 100 GFs, if we're meeting them one by one, it's going to take ages, so I thought we might get some multi-zings somewhere down the line. Because of that, I think some of the following scenarios could be possible:
-Idol group.
-Sports team (maybe Iku's teammates come back from America suddenly?)
-Sisters (regular sisters, twins, triples, quadruplets, you name it (I don't think the Sure-thing sisters will become GFs, btw)).
Some situations I could see happening would be the group trying to compete to see who gets Rentarou in the end until they learn about Rentarou's family and realize they can all have him, or the other GFs being unable to tell the twins apart (Rentarou would always get them right), so they start with some shenanigans trying to be more unique/recognizable. What are your thoughts/ideas on the matter?

Hello Dr. K,
I recently watched your video on YouTube about enlightenment and the concepts of the true self and the false self. Your insights were incredibly thought-provoking, and I would love to seek some further clarification from you.
In the video, you discussed whether aspects of our external world, such as our name, profession, body, wealth, gender, age, marital status, and parental status, truly define us. You argued that these elements are fluctuating and, therefore, cannot be considered our true self.
You then explored whether the mind constitutes our true self. Since emotions like happiness, sadness, joy, pleasure, and frustration are transient, you suggested that they too cannot define the true self.
So, if we are neither the external world nor our mind, who are we? You concluded that we are the experiencer or the observer of these fluctuations. You proposed that grounding ourselves in this true self – the observer – leads to contentment, regardless of the external world's state or our mind's condition.
This brings me to a few questions:

1. Contentment and Detachment: If being grounded in the true self means we find contentment irrespective of external success or internal emotional states, does this imply that we shouldn't care about achieving success or experiencing positive emotions?
   
2. Desire and Attachment: If the experiencer (true self) desires success in the external world and positive emotions, does this not create a form of attachment? How do we reconcile the pursuit of goals and the maintenance of emotional well-being with the idea of detachment?
   
3. Practical Implications: How do we practically apply this understanding of the true self in our daily lives, especially when facing challenges in our careers, relationships, or personal growth?
   

I am eager to hear your interpretations and guidance on these concepts. How do you navigate the balance between detachment and the pursuit of success and happiness?

I am STILL NOT the Original Poster. That is still . She posted in and .
You can read the previous BORU's here and here. New Update marked with ****\* Thanks to u/Choice_Evidence1983 and u/Direct-Caterpillar77 for letting me know!
Trigger Warning: brief mention of murder
Mood Spoiler: happy ending
Original Post: April 16, 2023
Throwaway because I have in-laws on Reddit.
Myself (25F) and my fiancé (27M) have a 2 month old son. We are overjoyed at being parents, but most of my in-laws are refusing to even see our baby because of a decision we made concerning his name.
My in-laws have a tradition of giving the first-born son of every generation the same name. Let's say it's "Peter". This has been going on for about seven generations already, and they're very serious about it. My fiancé's eldest cousin was the latest person to get named Peter. Every one of his cousins has only had daughters so far, so our baby is the first son of his generation, and consequently should get the name.
I have no problem with the name Peter, and would've been okay with naming my son that. Unfortunately, that was also the name of my uncle, who died before I was born. I won't get into details, but it was tragic and traumatizing for my family. My father never got over losing his younger brother.
My grandmother asked the family not to name any of our future children Peter during her lifetime. My MIL and FIL knew about this promise, and at first seemed to not only be okay with us avoiding the name Peter, but also supportive of the one we chose.
However, my grandmother sadly passed away when I was 7 months pregnant. We traveled for her funeral. On our last days there, my in-laws called to offer me their condolences. Then my MIL asked me if I was willing to "think about the name Peter now."
Suddenly, they were insistent that the name we chose was awful and we had to honor their tradition. According to them, they had only agreed to make an exception for us for my grandmother's sake, and had no obligation to keep it now that she had passed.
My family agrees that while it's true we don't have to avoid the name anymore, it still doesn't feel right to use it. My fiancé agrees with me as well, but his parents spent the last weeks of my pregnancy trying to convince us to change our minds about the name.
When our baby was born and we named him what we wanted, my in-laws were furious that we had broken a 7-generation-old family tradition. Some of them hadn't previously wanted to name their sons Peter, but did it anyway for the family's sake. They said our decision was selfish, and that my family "should have moved on by now."
This has truly nothing to do with whether my family has moved on or not, it just felt like a betrayal to my grandmother and uncle's memories to even consider using the name.
My FIL offered us $1000 to change our son's name to Peter after he was born. That was two months ago, and neither of my fiancé's parents have met the baby or seen us since I was pregnant. Most of my in-laws are on their side, and this is causing a huge rift between my fiancé and his family. He assures me he's fine, but I'm starting to feel really guilty about this.
AITA?
EDIT: The tradition started, as far as I know, when OG Peter died and his son, also named Peter, named his firstborn after his father. Peter III ended up having the first son of the following generation, and did the same thing. That one died before having children, so his sister gave the name to her son, and so on. The name “Peter” is very common in my country, so none of them ever got bullied over it, and the fact that it was also my uncle’s name isn’t as unlikely as one might think.
Also, middle names aren’t used in my country. Most people get the maternal surname before the paternal one instead.
EDIT 2: It wasn't 1000 dollars. Different country, different currency. It's still a lot of money, but would probably translate to about 200 USD.
Relevant Comments:
Can you use Peter as a middle name?"
Our country/culture doesn't generally use middle names. If we did, I'd be willing to think about that, even though my son's name doesn't match "Peter"."
How many Peters are alive right now in your family???"
There are 3 living "Peters" in the family right now. Only the eldest (my fiancé's great uncle) actually goes by Peter. The other two have nicknames ("Pete", "Petey", etc)."
OOP is voted NTA
Update Post: May 24, 2023 (a bit over 1 month later)
(OOP's post was removed from AITA, and reposted on her profile. I'm using the date of the AITA post. Comments are also from AITA)
I posted this on AITA, but it got removed about an hour ago because I mentioned a violent encounter on an edit. I tried editing it out and getting it back up, but it didn't work. I'm posting here in case anyone still wants to read it.
Original
Thank you so much to everyone who commented and offered support. A lot has happened since I posted, so I thought I'd give you an update.
About a week after my post, my fiancé's parents contacted us. They apologized for their behavior, and begged to meet my son. They said they were ready to leave the naming debacle behind and truly wanted to be involved in their grandson's life.
We were skeptical, but invited them over to meet the baby. The visit went well. They began coming over almost every day during the next three weeks. I noticed neither of them ever called my son by his name, but I didn't point it out. For the first time in months, things seemed good between my fiancé and his parents.
One day, my fiancé was helping my FIL with something at our place, so my MIL and I went to the park with my baby. Some time later, I had to go to the bathroom, so I left him in the stroller with her.
When I got back, she was sitting on a park bench, chatting with a woman who was cooing over my son. I went over there and introduced myself as "(son's name)'s mom", and she said, "I thought his name was Peter."
I didn't say a word, and neither did my MIL. She followed me to the car and we went back to my apartment. On the way there, I texted my fiancé about what had happened. The moment we got there, he kicked both his parents out of our place.
He'd read my texts and confronted his father. Thankfully, my FIL is a terrible liar, and confessed immediately. Apparently, both my in-laws ONLY call my son Peter. That includes whenever they're talking about him, every time they introduce him to someone else, and even baby-talking to him on the few occasions they were left alone with him. Neither of them are embarrassed by this, and they both think they're in the right.
We're heartbroken. Especially my fiancé. Not only because his parents can't let go of their pride, but also because the name we chose for our son means a lot to us both.
I blame myself for encouraging my fiancé to allow them near our son. I was raised in a different city than all my grandparents, and always wished they could have been more involved in my life. Losing my grandmother didn't help. Pretty much every doubt I had only existed because I thought it would be important for my son to grow up with all of his grandparents around.
But now, all my guilt is gone. If they can't respect my son enough to call him by his name, they don't deserve to be in his life.
I hope they enjoyed the three weeks they had with their grandson. Because that's all they're getting until they get their heads out of their asses.
EDIT: I thought I'd clarify some things. First of all, I'm not comfortable sharing my son's name here, but I promise it's not a "yooneek" name or anything like that. It's perfectly normal and popular-ish in our country.
Secondly, I mentioned this in the comments, but while my family didn't try to dictate me on my son's name, they would never be comfortable with it. My uncle Peter passed almost three decades ago, but it forever changed everyone who knew him. My grandmother's wish might seem a bit irrational, but it was motivated entirely by grief and it didn't seem right to disrespect that just because she's not around anymore.
And to whoever PM'd me that my fiancé's only on my side to keep the peace, he didn't want to use the name either. Months before I got pregnant, he told me he hoped one of his cousins would have a son before we did, because he always hated the tradition and sympathized with my family. He's just as angry at his parents as I am, if not more. Also, most of his cousins and some other relatives have come around and apologized.
Relevant Comments:
Are they this unhinged in other areas of your life too?"
According to my fiancé, they've always been a little entitled, but I never really saw them enough to be able to say that. I will say that, though they were polite, they very clearly didn't care about me until we moved in together. My MIL pretended not to remember my name every time she saw me, and my FIL would lose interest in any conversations that weren't about him. Once it was clear me and my fiancé were in for long term, they started acting a lot more friendly towards me, but it never seemed sincere."
Have other family members come around yet?"
Most of my fiancé's cousins have come around, and his brother was always on our side. His grandmother and some of his aunts and uncles are with us too. His grandfather (divorced from his grandmother), two out of three living Peters (the two oldest) and pretty much everyone else are either still mad at us or haven't reached out to talk about it yet.
My entire family is on my side. They promised not to interfere in the naming process, but are relieved we didn't name him Peter."
One more note on the $1000 offered in the first post:
"And that's $1000 in MY country's currency. It roughly translates to $200USD." (note- OOP clarifies in a comment that she is Brazilian)
OOP drops this horrible bombshell about her uncle, the one who died before she was born:
"My uncle was murdered. My grandmother's request was motivated by trauma."
"Again; my family would be mostly fine with naming my son Peter. My dad and my aunt might have been uncomfortable, and my grandmother asked us all not to do so, but I wouldn't have been disowned if I had. It simply felt disrespectful, especially since my grandmother passed shortly before my son was born.
My uncle's death was traumatic for my family, but the name Peter is hugely common in my country."
Update Post 2: July 28, 2023 (3 months from first post)
My son is now 5 months old (almost six!). We're still NC with my fiancé's parents, who haven't seen us since May. We've both blocked them everywhere. His relatives who were on our side still are, and most of the ones who weren't haven't come around. If anything, they're even more pissed now.
I remember someone suggesting that my fiancé's family might stop using the name after we decided not to. Well, you were right. Last week, one of my fiancé's cousins announced she was pregnant with a boy. She included her baby's name in the announcement, and it's not Peter.
What followed was a string of aggressive Instagram DMs from both MIL and FIL. They both created accounts for the sole purpose of contacting me. I didn't see them until two days later. They sent me almost an hour worth of voice messages about how I'd "ruined their family".
They wish their son had never met me, that he'd see me for "who I truly am", and that I'd never gotten pregnant. Many of the messages ended with "I hope you're happy now", as if they thought they were getting the last word, only to think of something else they wanted to say. There was name calling, an accusation of me cheating, and the persistent refusal to refer to my son as their grandchild.
My fiancé and I listened to the messages together. He hadn't gotten any. As much as I tried to distance myself, I was in tears by the time it was all done. I still don't regret anything, specially after the stunt they pulled back in May, but I'm not completely free of the guilt yet. Not to mention their complete disregard for their grandson. I was already having an overwhelming week, and this just seemed like the final straw.
I must have spent close to an hour sobbing in my fiancé's arms. Once I was calmer, he unblocked his parents just to scream at them for a while. I only heard his side of the conversation, but it was more than enough. He finished the call by saying he didn't want to hear from them again.
We had a long talk afterwards. My fiancé opened up about the emotional blackmail by his family before and after my pregnancy. My in-laws were close to threatening him with anything they could if we didn't name our son Peter. I told him about my guilt, and how awful I feel for putting him through this. We reassured each other, cried a bit more, and had a mostly pleasant evening with our baby.
We contacted his cousin. The family is giving her shit for breaking the tradition again. They're being way less aggressive though, and I think many of my in-laws are finally learning to let go. We're not expecting any apologies anytime soon, but we'll be glad if they come.
Our wedding will be in September 2024, and whoever doesn't give us a sincere apology until then is uninvited. My fiancé's parents are banned either way. We came to that decision together.
Also, I'd like to address some comments on my previous update about how I was "letting my family's trauma win", or how the name wouldn't be hurtful now that my grandmother has passed.
I can't stress enough the damage my uncle's death caused. He was only 30 years old. He had a fiancée, a great career and his whole life ahead of him. I don't know many details about what happened, because I didn't want to upset my family by asking. My grandmother wasn't the only person hurt by this, my entire paternal family was. And if I remember correctly, the person responsible isn't even in jail anymore. It was more than 20 years ago, but the wound never truly closed.
So yeah, I think it's safe to say the tradition is over. The next Not-Peter will be here in January, right before my son's first birthday. It was never my intention for this to turn into such a shitstorm, but I'm so incredibly proud of my little family.
Thank you so much to everyone who shared their stories and offered advice during these last few months. I'll be forever grateful for all the support I got from y'all.
*****New Update Post: May 13, 2024 (13 months from OG post, about 10 from last post)****\*
Hey everyone, it's been a while. I hope you guys had a great Mother's Day!
I remember that last year, I promised myself I'd write a final update as soon as I felt calmer or felt the situation was closer to being solved. That actually happened months ago, but I've been busy lately.
Following my previous update, my fiancé's side of the family remained upset about the tradition being over for a few more months. They were way less intense about it, specially with the pregnant cousin I mentioned, but it was still evident.
That cousin's Not-Peter (almost a year later, I still can't think of a better term) was born in January. Our son turned one the next month. I think the fact that these two things happened so close together helped many of my in-laws let go of the tradition.
We got a few apologies we weren't expecting. Some of them were sincere enough that we slowly started reestablishing contact.
My fiancé's parents were not among those who apologized. We haven't spoken to either of them since last July. From what I've heard from some of his other relatives, however, MIL seems regretful. She has told some of them that she wishes she could be part of her grandson's life, and wonders if making his name a hill to die on was a bad decision. FIL, from what I gather, barely acknowledges my baby exists.
My fiancé knows about how his mother feels, but he says he doesn't care. And even if we did get an apology, I don't think either of us can forgive his parents. As much as we're mostly okay now, it sometimes feels like their treatment of our family ruined the first few months of our baby's life. I know that's not actually true, but I don't want them around my child.
Besides all that, things have been great. My son is 15 months old now, which I don't think I'll ever really get used to. He recently started drawing and has been expanding his vocabulary. He said "mamãe" first, by the way.
My fiancé and I are still getting married in September. We're thinking about moving abroad in a couple years (for work reasons), but we're not sure yet. We also recently got a dog (sadly, we didn't name him Peter).
This will be my final update. Whatever guilt I had about this situation a year ago is completely gone, and my life has been peaceful enough that it feels safe to say the shitshow is over.
Hugo, if you ever find this, you are the most fantastic thing that has ever happened to us. Thank you for letting me be your mom.
Thank you, Reddit, for all the love, advice and support you've given me this past year.
Relevant Comment:
Commenter: Whilst this may be your final update on the naming sage, you said you are getting married in September 2024 and MiL&FiL aren't going to be invited.
Prepare for more craziness from them at that time and good luck :)

OOP: I really do think this is over. My fiancé's parents don't know when or where we're getting married, so I'm not worried about them showing up. They haven't reached out to us in months, and we have no interest in contacting them.