1. The world is trying to keep you stupid. From bank fees to interest rates to miracle diets, people who are not educated are easier to get money from and easier to lead. Educate yourself as much as possible for wealth, independence, and happiness.
2. Do not have faith in institutions to educate you. By the time they build the curriculum, it’s likely that the system is outdated– sometimes utterly broken. You both learn and get respect from people worth getting it from by leading and doing, not by following.
3. Read as much as you can. Learn to speed read with high retention. Emerson Spartz taught me this while I was at a Summit Series event. If he reads 2-3 books a week, you can read one.
4. Connect with everyone, all the time. Be genuine about it. Learn to find something you like in each person, and then speak to that thing.
5. Don’t waste time being shy. Shyness is the belief that your emotions should be the arbitrators of your decision making process when the opposite is actually true.
6. If you feel weird about something during a relationship, that’s usually what you end up breaking up over.
7. Have as much contact as possible with older people. Personally, I met people at Podcamps. My friend Greg, at the age of 13, met his first future employer sitting next to him on a plane. The reason this is so valuable is because people your age don’t usually have the decision-making ability to help you very much. Also they know almost everything you will learn later, so ask them.
8. Find people that are cooler than you and hang out with them too. This and the corollary are both important: “don’t attempt to be average inside your group. Continuously attempt to be cooler than them (by doing cooler things, being more laid back, accepting, ambitious, etc.).”
9. You will become more conservative over time. This is just a fact. Those you surround yourself with create a kind of “bubble” that pushes you to support the status quo. For this reason, you need to do your craziest stuff NOW. Later on, you’ll become too afraid. Trust me.
10. Reduce all expenses as much as possible. I mean it. This creates a safety net that will allow you to do the crazier shit I mentioned above.
11. Instead of getting status through objects (which provide only temporary boosts), do it through experiences. In other words, a trip to Paris is a better choice than a new wardrobe. Studies show this also boosts happiness.
12. While you are living on the cheap, solve the money problem. Use the internet, because it’s like a cool little machine that helps you do your bidding. If you are currently living paycheck to paycheck, extend that to three weeks instead of two. Then, as you get better, you can think a month ahead, then three months, then six, and finally a year ahead. (The goal is to get to a point where you are thinking 5 years ahead.)
14. Get a six-pack (or get thin, whatever your goal is) while you are young. Your hormones are in a better place to help you do this at a younger age. Don’t waste this opportunity, trust me.
15. Learn to cook. This will make everything much easier and it turns food from a chore + expensive habit into a pleasant + frugal one. I’m a big Jamie Oliver fan, but whatever you like is fine.
16. Sleep well. This and cooking will help with the six pack. If you think “I can sleep when I’m dead” or “I have too much to do to sleep,” I have news for you: you are INEFFICIENT, and sleep deprivation isn’t helping.
One of our awesome members is writing their Bachelor’s thesis on a possible language change in New Zealand slang. The plan is to relate the results to how female sexual identity is is formed in language.
They need more women’s opinions on words and phrases such as “cunt” and “good cunt” (as well as many more) and we have been invited to share the survey and help signal boost!
“Men’s indifference to learning about contraception and to taking any responsibility for it is a theme that emerges from many reports of projects that have attempted, and failed, to reach and educate men. One of the most successful programs of contraception education for men, a Planned Parenthood project in Chicago, abandoned its attempts to reach men over the age of twenty-five when it was found that these men simply would not participate, even when offered beer, sandwiches, free condoms—and “stag” movies. Instead, the project targeted a younger group, and as part of its research the project conducted a survey of over a thousand men aged fifteen to nineteen:
• These young men were asked whether they agreed with the statement “It’s okay to tell a girl you love her so that you can have sex with her.” Seven out of ten agreed that it’s okay.
• They were asked whether they agreed with the statement “A guy should use birth control whenever possible.” Eight out of ten disagreed and said a guy should not.
• And when asked, “If I got a girl pregnant, I would want her to have an abortion,” nearly nine out of ten said no, they would not want her to have an abortion. These teenage men agreed: Deception to obtain coital access is okay; male irresponsibility in contraception is okay; but abortion is not okay—“because it’s wrong.”
Largely because of attitudes such as these, one million teenage women—one tenth of all teenage women—become pregnant each year, and two thirds of their pregnancies are not wanted.”
If you’re gonna call Pro-Choicers “Pro-Abortion”, then you’re also gonna have to call us “Pro-Adoption” and “Pro-Parenthood”. Because we don’t care which option you choose, as long as it’s your decision.
See, the thing about being pro-choice, is we don’t actually advocate for one specific option. Yes, we want to keep abortion legal so it’s therefore safe and no pregnant person has to die while seeking an abortion, if abortion is what they choose. But no one who is pro-choice actually tells anyone who is pregnant what they should or shouldn’t do. That would defeat the purpose of our position of being pro-choice.
We are pro-choice because we want people to be able to make their own decisions and their own choices about their bodies and lives. Which means we are Pro-Abortion, Pro-Adoption AND Pro-Parenthood.
“In contemporary society we’re expected both to praise the miracle of birth and deplore it as the wages of sin. We expect men to take cold showers if they get an erection, and to take Viagra if they can’t. We encourage straight women to kiss in bars, and actual lesbians not to. We expect young men to have sex they’re not ready for, and young women to decline it when they are. We’re expected to say we like oral sex even when we don’t, and to say we dislike anal sex even supposing we do. We’re expected to buy sudoku books with bikini models on the cover and to read Playboy for the articles. We’re expected to gradually lose interest in our spouses and not to have affairs. We’re expected to stress about unplanned, unwanted pregnancy and to see stopping to put on a condom as unromantic. We expect to believe men don’t read romance novels and women don’t watch porn, even though there’s maybe a 30% crossover both directions. If you’re a woman you’re expected to zealously guard your hymen up to the point you get married (whether you wanted to or not), and then upon receipt of a marriage license you’re expected to turn around and let some guy pound away at it whenever he wishes (whether you wanted to or not.) Looking in another direction if you’re a man you’re expected to run screaming from the room if your wife puts her purse down too close to you… because your wife’s purse might somehow magically “make you gay.” We’re supposed to pretend that women faint at the sight of blood, and ignore that men are far more inclined to. We expect women to depend financially on men and expect men to dump their wives for floozies at the drop of a thong. We’re expected to think a model is sexy if she’s in a Victoria’s Secret poster at the mall, and we’re expected to think a mom in workout pants and a sweatshirt isn’t sexy if she’s in the same mall pushing a stroller.”—“Why I Blog About Sex” (via plays-with-squirrels)
“Look, here’s the deal: It doesn’t matter if you think you’re a nice person. And it doesn’t matter if your tone, attitude, sentiments and facial expressions are all very sweet, kindly and sympathetic-seeming. If you’re opposing legal equality, then you don’t get to be nice. Opposing legal equality is not nice and it cannot be done nicely.”—slacktivist (via azspot)
Protip: if you are able to say “who cares, why do people get so offended all the time” you are remarkably lucky to be so privileged that there is nothing about you that makes you feel unsafe in the world.
My partner and I collaborated on a reply to this article, and if you scroll down, ours is the eleventh (and final) comment, under the name ‘Josh’. However, I will post our reply out in full here, because it took quite some time, and as it took the page moderators so long to post it, we are doubtful anyone will actually see it.
Wooooweee. Yet another religious sympathizer who perfects the art of not knowing what she’s talking about.
“While it is not true that all atheists are the equivalents of bible-bashers, foisting great works of anti-religious writing on any person who is even vaguely querulous about unbelief, we have to realise that some of them are, and that this is damaging to our community.”
-Please explain how the only ones who are brave enough to stand up to plain-in-your-face b*******, are damaging. Do you not like having your comfortable beliefs probed? Would you complain if this were politics? I think not. You don’t take that probing personally. And the same should be done here. Belief in god(s), ghosts, UFOs, Noah’s Ark, creationism, and any other quasi-supernatural rubbish should be ACTIVELY probed, questioned, and hotly debated. Especially when there is NO scientific evidence for any of them! This is the kind of stuff that should have died off years ago. Unfortunately, believing emotionally, instead of thinking critically, is still the path most people take. This is partly due to the fact critical thinking isn’t taught in schools, yet religious activities are. Critical thinking is something we really need to work on as a society.
“But while we denounce these people when the viewpoint is religious, we seem to do nothing when they’re promoting atheism. Why is this?”
-REALLY? Have you heard of what people think of atheists in the US? Here is an example:http://digitaljournal.com/article/315425 As for New Zealand, you don’t get much coverage of atheism here, so I think most people don’t know about what it is or just don’t care. If it’s not being denounced, it’s probably because of that reason. Or because people can see it actually makes sense.
“Perhaps it’s the way that atheism is presented. It implies that we live in a completely secular society, that disbelief is the base setting for most people, and that anyone following religion is a deviation from the norm. And because atheism is closely tied with scientific advancement and experimentation, it promotes itself as the rational, scientific view of the universe.”
-All atheism is, (If you had actually looked this up) is the lack of belief in a god or god(s). That’s all it is. That’s all it means. It has no doctrine, and it isn’t even technically a position. You don’t call yourself a Non-Santa believer now do you? Right. The term ‘atheist” or “atheism” was coined as a reaction to the large amount of believers. Now falling under the term atheism, are two categories: http://religiouscartoons.net/albums/userpics/grid.png (You can see them on the left)
Those two positions are: The Weak Atheist – lacks a belief in god or gods, and acknowledges that it is presumptuous to say for sure that there is no god, although in the absence of any evidence, contends it is unlikely and not worthy of consideration. Also known as the “Agnostic” or the “Agnostic-Atheist”. 99% of most atheists are the “weak” variety, even though most theists’ idea of atheism is something different. And the Strong Atheist – believes that there is no God; some argue this position, which is uncommon among atheists, as it is as equally presumptuous as claiming there is a god (It is accepted that it’s virtually impossible to prove a negative, that something does not exist)
“[Atheism] implies that we live in a completely secular society.” No it doesn’t. Atheism has no doctrine. Atheism does not imply that disbelief is the base setting for most people. It has NO doctrine. Though atheism is the end result of scepticism, which is tied closely to science, atheism itself has no say on the matter. Again, all an atheist is, and all atheists are, are people who doesn’t believe in a god. That’s it. Some vary on whether they can know or cannot know for sure that a god can or cannot exist, but that is ALL.
“Any religious person is immediately un- intellectual and ill-informed. Faith is the last refuge of the idiot, they say.”
-Statistically, if you’re an atheist, you’re more likely to be intelligent. (http://hazweb.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=religion&action=display&thread=35468) But putting aside that, I think you will find most atheists just feel that religious people are massively misinformed, and/or just plain indoctrinated (without any critical comparison against their closely held beliefs) from a young age. This is often true, as you tend to be religious if your parents are. But I think you will find there are some highly intelligent religious believers, Francis Collins, who was head of the Human Genome Project, is a good example. The majority of our friends and families are religious, and you’d be hard pressed to find a single atheist who thinks that all believers are automatically un-intellectual. This is a far-fetched claim and a strawman argument.
“Which is my main problem with atheism; its inherent hypocrisy. Because, for all the espousing about lack of faith, atheism is a faith-based position.”
-*facepalm*… I can see you’re getting the meanings of faith confused. There are two definitions: 1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something. (I have faith my computer will turn on) or 2. Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. (Religious Faith)
Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity. Theists often assume atheism to be a “belief”. And therefore they claim that atheism is a belief system that also requires “faith” (to believe there is no god). This is an erroneous characterization. A “lack of belief” is not a “world view”; it presupposes no rules, doctrine or dogma. It’s merely a lack of belief in a god. Do you believe in the non-existence of Santa Claus? Would you call yourself an anti-tooth-fairyian? Is ones’ identity or world-view tied to what they don’t believe in? No. This can only be applied to a strong atheist, as they are proposing that there “is no god”, which can’t be proved. (so far) But the majority are not strong atheists. Atheists often tend to be atheists because they trust science and evidence. They trust logic and rationality. They are often sceptics. You could call this trust “Faith” if you like, but it would NOT be the religious “faith”. Religious faith is the belief in a god or god(s) WITHOUT evidence. It is the answer people often give when they are probed or questioned about their beliefs. They hold it up the saying “you just gotta have faith” like a shield of gold, not realizing how bad their perfect “logic” is. If a man told you to jump off a cliff, saying you would live, would you believe him? Definitely not if he didn’t have any evidence. Probably not if he had some. But maybe you would if he proved completely that there was a safety mat at the bottom, and he would give you $50 bucks if you did. SOOO WHY, when it comes to the workings of the universe, and perhaps the meaning of life, do you fall for this utter crap? When there is nothing at all to back it up? These are some of life’s most important questions man! But when you fall for religion, you sell yourself so short. It’s a con-job. You could make as strong a case for god as you could with Santa Claus for Pete’s sake. Faith is NOT a virtue. It is the excuse people give when they feel emotionally threatened and intellectually lacking. (http://edmundstanding.wordpress.com/2010/08/26/atheism-is-not-a-belief-and-does-not-require-faith/)
“Faith is an act of looking into the infinity of the universe and devising from it some sort of pattern. Whether this is held in the workings of sub-atomic particles, an interventionist deity, or a combination of both, is irrelevant. It is an act of staying the realisation that we are small and insignificant and, quite frankly, stupid.”
- This is not faith. Please check definitions above.
“Both these acts are ways of attempting to remove doubt from the world. But doubt is precisely what we should be preaching at this time. ”
-One is attempting to find meaning from a 2000 year old Bronze Age book, and relate it to modern day life. Which often doesn’t work. This then results in cherry picking, which, ironically, goes against the text itself. But what the hell huh? Lack of logical thinking is so normal for Christianity. Oh, and did I mention that the Bible is a fairy tale? And none of it has been proven? In fact a lot of it had been disproven, Noah’s Ark, the global flood, Creation of the earth, Adam & Eve, and the story of Babel are all great examples. All religions are basically wishful thinking, emotionally based beliefs. With NO evidence involved. If you want learn about the world and the cosmos, using religion is the worst path you can choose. Science, logic, and rationality, however, have evolved to become the best tool humanity has for understanding the world around us. It relies on evidence, and it works. The reason your microwave works is because science has worked. The reason your car turns on is because science has worked. If I really need to explain this further, there is something wrong with you. You can look this up.
“Someone I once knew insisted on doing, attempting to, daily, “rationalise” believers in a Christian school. It encourages us to accept that faith is all very well and good but there are many opinions in the world, and yours might not be the correct one. Statistically speaking, it probably isn’t.”
-Good on her; might have been good to have listened. Must have been very brave to stand up to everyone. My hat goes out to her. Oh, and whoever has the most believers doesn’t mean they are correct. This is called “the argument from popularity” which is another logical fallacy. Just because a majority of people believe something does not make it true. There was a time when everyone believed the Earth was flat, or that the Earth was the centre of the universe and everything revolved around it. As our understanding of science and the universe expands, it illuminates the irrationality of many early beliefs. We no longer believe that lightning is caused by the god Zeus waving his sceptre. We understand that there are reasons for earthquakes and weather events that have nothing to do with anything supernatural, even though in past times, people were convinced God was at the control panel actively making these things occur, and the weather could be controlled by making sacrificial offerings of humans or other creatures. All sorts of things were commonly accepted as reasonable and acceptable, such as slavery, which we now recognize were unreasonable and unacceptable. If history has taught us anything, it’s that just because a large group of people believe something is moral or truthful, does not make it so.
You seem to have this idea that atheists are fundamentalist in their views, that they are of the opinion that they could not POSSIBLY be wrong. Quite the contrary. Atheists will, to quote Tim Minchin, “spin on a f****** dime”; we will alter our viewpoints immediately. All we need is one thing: evidence. Atheists never claim to hold the absolute truth (unlike the majority of theists). All we have is a disbelief in gods, and we are waiting for the evidence. The burden of proof lies on those making extraordinary claims.
“But more than that, doubt saves us from being rude. I’m talking real, invasive rudeness, of the kind that is commonly called offence, as if the onus is on the offence-taker and not offence-giver to monitor language. Rudeness like I saw my friends encountering online. Far from being a petty thing, not accepting this is a marker that we live in a civilised society, where we tolerate differences of opinion and where we’re sufficiently grown-up to not throw tantrums at the fact that diversity of belief exists.”
-The only reason it seems you took offense was the fact you and your friends were not used to your beliefs being questioned. Unfortunately, other peoples’ opinions are something everyone must learn to deal with as they grow up. Writing a bitchy article about these people, at an event that happened almost a year ago, really shows I think, at how badly you seemed to have taken it. Next time, please try to bring some actual evidence for god, (which we are still patiently waiting on) instead of trying (miserably I might add) to attack atheism on various false premises, which you could have avoided if you had done some research first.
“If there is a God then, I am told, He wouldn’t want this intolerance.”
No, I don’t think he would. I also don’t think he would have wanted the Holocaust, the First World War, the Second World War, and the mindless killing that has gone on over the last few centuries. (But then again, considering the millions of people he killed in the Old Testament, maybe he’s totally ok with it.) Surely, the creator of the ENTIRE universe, the ALL KNOWING, ALL LOVING, ALL POWERFUL GOD, would have done something to stop the madness. But he didn’t. As Epicurus puts it, “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” Besides, “I am told” – you are told by whom? A Bronze Age book? Christian friends? If this god didn’t want this intolerance, he can let me know himself, or at least let his followers know in a provable way. Funny how he stopped performing miracles after video cameras were invented. Oh, and you use the word “intolerance”. Homophobes are intolerant. Racists are intolerant. Misogynists are intolerant. ‘Militant’ atheists who do not believe in something without evidence and who actively question theists cannot come under the same label. Tolerance does not equal tolerating intolerance. The Bible is full of intolerance, but by not tolerating its intolerance, atheists are the intolerant ones?
“And if there isn’t, we’re going to die soon and for ever anyway, so why in His meaningless name are you wasting your time yelling about it?”
“I am certainly not the first woman to suffer this kind of harassment and sadly, I won’t be the last. But I’d just like to reiterate that this is not a trivial issue. It can not and should not be brushed off by saying, “oh well that’s YouTube for you“, “trolls will be trolls” or “it’s to be expected on the internet”. These are serious threats of violence, harassment and slander across many online platforms meant to intimidate and silence. And it’s not okay.”—
Side note: When I started blogging about feminist issues, one of my first posts was about the appalling sexism in the games industry and among gamers because I had just attended gamescom. Not hard to guess what I had to deal with in the comments section of that blog post…
The idea that offended is offended is well, offensive. This word and this notion has become fodder for the masses. Anything can be offensive. Any topic. Any piece of art. Any book. Any-thing.
The statement that is often made about everyone being offended by something, is likely one that leans strongly towards true. The problem here is that “Offended” is not an equal opportunity offender.
Take sex for instance. There are people who believe that sex is not something to be discussed in mixed company. There are people who believe you should only have a sexual conversation behind tightly closed doors and with a very specific person or group of people. Now, if you were to have a conversation about sex within ear shot of a person who felt this way, they would likely be offended by your conversation. **For the purposes of this post, this scenario is of people talking about sex in the technical/educational sense and not in the graphic sense.
Next, take the example of a non-Black person using the word N*gger. People will be offended.
Both examples could and likely would be a reason for someone to be offended but there is an extreme difference between the two.
In the sex example, the people in the sexual discussion may feel that the offended party is overreacting. They may see nothing wrong with the conversation at hand. They may even want to continue the conversation knowing that they have offended someone. All of these things can also be said for the non-Black person saying N*gger.
The difference is, one of these, in it’s most basic form is a matter of manners while the other is a matter of hate. Yes, even if you didn’t mean it THAT way. Yes, even if your Black friend said it was okay. Yes, even if you date Black people. Yes, even if you have Black people in your family.
To casually say something is offensive and give each of the offending topics the same weight, is in and of itself an offensive and often cruel, action. To dismiss something as nothing more than some over sensitive person being offended by “Everything” is to lay the entirety of owness on the offended person. This seems like a small issue when dealing in things that fall into the “Manners” category. There are people living right now, in 2012 who still find it offensive to put your elbows on the table at dinner time. The difference is that this is a social faux pas at best. No one was ever caused harm, either physical or emotional, over a simple lack of social decorum. Unless you possibly count embarrassment. Otherwise, saying that someone is “Offended” or worse “Offended by EVERYTHING” when it was you who acted in an unconscionable, sub-human way, is disgusting at best and bigoted at worst.
“Certain pursuits and interests that are considered feminine, such as gossiping or decorating, are often characterized as ‘frivolous,’ while masculine preoccupations—even those that serve solely recreational functions, such as sports—generally escape such trivialization.”—Julia Serano (via piranhaheart)
Characters voiced by black men get a pretty decent amount of screen time in animated films these days, often being the main sidekick on the hero or heroes’ journey to success, being present virtually every step of the way. Some people would argue that this is a step forward for black entertainers.
“Afro Circus” is simply the most recent in a long line of public displays of buffoonery that is reducing the “black” character to one-dimensional comic relief in animated films. In every installment of the Madagascar series, Chris Rock’s character, Marty the Zebra, has been a Frankenstein of stitched-together comic tropes, lending very little actual characterization to the character. Marty is constantly the butt of some joke or another, and when he isn’t its some other character voiced by POC, in this case the lemurs. Then there’s Chris Rock’s character in Bee Movie. A mosquito on his way to Alaska for moose blood that will, quote, “blow your head off.” His only purpose in that movie is comic relief while the main character has a crisis.
Some of you may be saying “Well hang on a minute, Theo! You’re just picking on Chris Rock! Surely there are other black actors out there who voice characters that can be taken seriously!”
Alright, anonymous voice from nowhere, let’s look at one of the most prolific black actors of all time: Eddie Murphy. If anyone can be taken seriously, it’s going to arguably the most successful POC in Hollywood, right?
When people think of Mulan, what image springs to mind? Sure, first of all there’s the strong female POC lead who bucks against gender norms and societal constraints and that’s fantastic. But then there’s Eddie Murphy, who brings what, exactly, to the table?
That’s right, dishonor. By allowing the “black” character to be reduced to, say it with me now, a Minstrel Show.
And what about his role in Shrek, which is arguably one of the most successful animated films of the last decade or so.
Waffles. His character is defined, in actual legitimate official promotional material, by waffles.
And the list goes on!
“But Theo! What about ‘black’ characters who AREN’T ridiculous minstrel shows?” Good point, anonymous voice from nowhere! What about them?
You know, I honestly can’t remember any.
Seriously, I can’t. And the only one I’ve managed to find by searching is Bloog from Open Season. And the only reason I can include him is because he isn’t constantly a minstrel show. He’s a walking black stereotype in the form of a bear, and I can’t decide which is worse!
I defy you to find me a “black” character from an animated film produced in the last 10 years that isn’t some form of ridiculous farce. Hollywood is being whitewashed, and when it isn’t the POC characters are only there for comic relief or to serve as some sort of cultural guide so that the white characters can feel deservedly guilty for their whiteness.
12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—
13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.
15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16 Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!
18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
20 The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, 21 so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Some portions of this passage are bolded to outline the doctrine of original sin. The doctrine can be best understood by the words “sin entered the world through one man.” However, due to the myths of other cultures (i.e. Enuma Elish) and due — in greater part — to the Theory of Evolution, it is fairly simple to conclude that the man of original sin — Adam — did not exist. It is important to note that there are Christians who no longer accept the Creation myth in Genesis, but still accept the supposed redemptive power of the sacrifice of Christ. Well, how can one not accept the original sinner, but accept the redeemer? It’s illogical and thus, Christians who have adjusted their beliefs in such a manner are automatically discredited by the question alone. On the other hand, there are Christians who still believe the Creation myth to be true. However, how can they reject the parallels this myth has with that of other cultures? Moreover, how can they reject the Theory of Evolution — a theory that has substantial evidences in many respective fields of science?
There are only two conclusions: 1) If there was no original sinner, as the evidence strongly suggests, Jesus Christ died for nothing because there was no original sin due to the absence of an original sinner. 2) Jesus Christ did not exist because the original sinner did not exist. If there is no original sinner (the first Adam), then there is no need for a redeemer — “the last Adam” as 1 Corinthians 15:45 would posit. Ultimately, both conclusions destroy Christianity at its core. If Christ existed, he died for nothing and the message of salvation is reduced to an abstraction. If he didn’t exist, then the entire basis of Christianity is ripped from its roots. This is indeed the final nail in the cross.
wow do you ever just sit and think about how amazing it is when people show other people affection like sometimes it’s just words and other times it’s like a rub on the shoulder or an expression on their face or sometimes they kiss or have sex or watch a movie together while cuddling under the same blanket and THERE ARE JUST SO MANY WAYS TO SHARE LOVE AND LIFE IS REALLY BEAUTIFUL SOMETIMES
Why can’t I just walk down the street, minding my own damn business without some random asshole shouting things at me?
Seriously, I’m sick of just walking past and ignoring it.
Next time some fucker “hollas” at me, I am going to SCREAM IN HIS FACE.
“HEY! HEY YOU! YOU FUCKIN TALKING TO ME? OH WHATS THE MATTER, WERE YOU MINDING YOUR OWN DAMN BUSINESS WHEN SOME STRANGER STARTED HOLLERING AT YOU? HEY! HOW WOULD YOU FEEL IF SOME MAN CAME UP AND TOLD YOU HE WANTED TO FUCK YOU IN THE ASS?! WOULD YOU FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE AND UNSAFE? THEN WHY DO YOU DO IT TO OTHER PEOPLE YOU ASSHOLE?!!”
“I could not handle being in a Christian environment because I felt everyone was being manipulated and used in the dirtiest of ways, but especially those of us in female bodies. Cismen were constantly telling me how to dress, behave, live my life in the name of “saving me.” “You have to cover your bodies, girls, to protect our boys.” Boobs are not bombs. You don’t need protecting. I do. I need protecting from the relentless bullshit pushed at me. I need protecting from the boys who grabbed my ass in the hallways because “boys will be boys”, from the girls who lived to tell me to pull my shirt up, from the Bible teacher that told us that he feels we should “Go back to the Old Testament ways,” meaning we should stone anyone that finds themselves pregnant and not married, and from my classmates that nodded their heads and agreed with him.
When I was being fed lies everyday, I hated myself. I felt guilty the first time I got my period. Bodies of all kinds were dirty, but female bodies were a whole other level. Slowly, I started rebelling in quiet ways, always making sure that technically I couldn’t be expelled. Because they wanted so much for us to think that we chose their ways. “Accepting Jesus into your heart is a personal decision.” Except it wasn’t. The illusion of choice is so easy to fall into. When you are stuck in an environment that “encourages healthy spiritual debates,” you want to feel you are thinking for yourself, but what comes out of your mouth is only what has been shoved down your throat. The whole thing is sickening.”
It’s not the feminine stuff that is the problem. The problem is the expectation that anybody who is perceived as a woman dress a certain way, wear a certain kind of clothes, behave a certain way, whatever.
The problem is that feminine things are only for people with vaginas and boobs.
The problem is that feminine things are seen as less valuable than masculine things.
The problem is the enforcement and the shaming when you’re not feminine.
Rejecting the feminine can be an important critique of oppressive gender roles so long as that critique doesn’t turn into actual hatred of femininity.
“Racism is not in your intent. Your intent is immaterial in how racist your actions are. This isn’t about you BEING a racist. It’s about you DOING A THING that is racist. Your intent doesn’t change it. Your ignorance of its meaning doesn’t change it. It’s got nothing to do with you as a person and everything to do with the meaning of your action in the context of sociocultural history.”—