I am an intersectional feminist, a secular humanist, an atheist, pro-choice, left-wing, sex+, a mental health and disabilities advocate, a skeptic and a freethinker.
I am a black belt, an artist, a gamer, a tea-drinker and a cat-lover.
I love yellow, the Simpsons, Harry Potter, manga/anime, kinkiness, P!nk, costumes, quotes and gaming.
I also run a tumblr solely for funny stuff, steampunkbanana (linked below).
Like, why don’t SJWs start by ’calling out’ people who actively hate other races/homosexuals/etc, rather than those people who don’t mean any intent or harm?
Focus on the more important issues first, surely.
I am not, nor will I ever be, concerned with the actively hateful individuals. After all, that’s just an active hate that people get. Yes, I don’t like what they believe, of course. They’re just bad people, but I’m not going to go out an attack them. They intend to be hateful individuals. Not just have thoughts, but are actively hateful. They don’t bother me.
What does concern me is everyone else, those people who hate aren’t my biggest obstacle, the people who will stand in the way out of their masked bigotry that continues to hold poeple back. Dr. King understood back in the 60’s:
I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.”
People, the moderates and liberals are my stumbling block. Active hat e is not the issue, complacency and the ability to make the minimal intent-less issues are.
Oh, also. Because despite their intent, their results are different. It they oppress me ‘unintentionally’, it’s still oppressive all the same.
15th October 2012
Reblogged From steelviola
Notes: 13
Click on the picture to see the whole thing.
“Why does it matter so much to you? What harm is there in letting people believe what they want?” Unlike “Why don’t you believe in God?”, this inquiry actually has come to me in my personal life and I do have an answer for it as well. I do not wish to force people to believe or not believe anything and I want to make that clear. However, I do indeed desire to influence people towards rational inquiry and, potentially, atheism. I try not to impose the state of not believing on people, but rather encourage them to question everything and hope that, in doing so, it could eventually lead them to rejecting theistic beliefs. We absolutely have every right to believe whatever we want; but that doesn’t mean our beliefs should have any immunity to criticism (or ridicule, for that matter). If you have the right to preach a belief, I have the right to scrutinize it and vice versa. I think it is far more important for people to grow a thick skin than to just avoid criticism all together by hiding under the “it’s offensive!” blanket. I hope that gives a decent preface to my direct answer. There is no harm in my act of ‘letting’ people believe what they want, but I am concerned with what people believe because of the potential harm and ignorance it can inflict on their own self and others. Throughout history, more human blood has been shed in the name of God than for any other cause; and creationists are a great example of religion-induced ignorance. In their minds, the vague and arbitrary and often self-conflicting teachings of a book written over 2 millenia ago have more authority and credit than the established findings and discoveries of the modern day’s most intelligent individuals. Richard Dawkins said it very well: “I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.” Outside of the harmful and ignorant types, what about the moderates? Does simply having faith but not necessarily acting upon the teachings of a particular doctrine cause any harm? Well, no, not in an immediate sense anyway. In this case, I have to reiterate something specifically about my own personality: More than anything, I desire the human race to thrive and better itself, and I feel that this can only be achieved through acts resulting of rational, logical thinking. Religious claims simply do not hold up in the realms of rationality and logic so I do have contempt for them. If rationality and logic are the only way to a better future for the human race, as I sincerely think they are, then religion is a huge, impeding roadblock to that progress.
