archaic people

I hate when Muslims are glorifying the hijab and then they’ll say something like “"well in ancient Europe women were also supposed to cover up and only show themselves to them husbands!” Like yea that was backwards and archaic af we should be moving on from from the Stone Age not trying to emulate it. 

kira-sputnik  asked:

hey friendo! i heard you were taking promts, so if it aint any trouble could you do 'insecure trans nb boy lance being comforted by keith and others'? i hope you have a nice day!

Love to~  It got kinda long and out of hand, but I would love to see more prompts like this to explore.  If anyone wants to discuss this or why I went the way I did, please don’t hesitate to ask.

Lance stretches as he heads back to his room after a day full of training and drills.  He’s sore and tired and crabby, but he’s glad for the armor they’d all been wearing since their arrival out here in space.  Of course he knows himself and he knows his friends - he loves them all to pieces, but there’s only so much he can stand of being called a boy in one day.  It’s not wrong, per se, but he doesn’t see why he has to go by any pronoun like he or she most days…

He and Keith had had a heart to heart about this a week after Pidge came out.  The team had all rallied around her identification, leaving Lance to struggle with his own discomfort with being mislabeled.  Everyone had adapted so well to Pidge’s wanting to be called by a “normal” pronoun..  What are they going to say when Lance tells them that he’s more comfortable with “they” than “he?”  Running a hand through his hair at the memory, he can’t help but smile at how Keith had reacted to the mess he’d seen.

His face had been red and swollen, his hair a mess between his fingers as he sat with his knees drawn to his chest and his back to his bed.  Lance had ignored the stupid Mullet’s approaching him, had hoped Keith would leave on his own and not say a word.

Lance hadn’t expected for Keith to sit with him.  He hadn’t thought it possible for Keith to sit through Lance’s crying and hypervenitilation without demanding that Lance just shut up and get over it.  Lance had been so sure that it was impossible that when he calmed down, Keith offered to go get him water.  He’d been so sure that Keith panicked from Lance’s lack of response and helped get Lance back in bed to further calm down.

Keith had listened to Lance - only after Lance had drank a whole container of water, much to Lance’s annoyance - and asked questions in a way that hadn’t been as abrasive as Lance had expected.  He’d asked why Lance was telling him, why he hadn’t already told the team, why didn’t he tell the others when Pidge did, and a bunch of other stuff in Keith’s usual way, but Lance hadn’t expected for Keith to be so…understanding.

After that, Lance had felt his heart swell each time Keith referred to Lance as “they”.  Sure, Keith fibbed a little when pressured about the odd phrasing - “I meant Blue and Lance, Shiro.  They’re a pair just like any of us.” - but Lance had thanked him profusely at the unexpected help.

Now he just isn’t sure to bring it up to the others…

Hunk knew that Lance wasn’t…  Well, wasn’t a lot of things.  Lance wasn’t confident or snarky or spitfire or any of the things he pretends to be.  But what he does know is that Lance isn’t a guy.  And Hunk feels awful for knowing that.  Yeah, his friend isn’t straight - you learn a lot about someone when you spend two years bunking with them - but Hunk isn’t going to bring something up when he knows Lance isn’t ready to confront it yet and he knows better than to voice this thought.  It’s disrespectful to Lance if Hunk were to ever even think of saying, “I knew before you did.”

With that said, he’s surprised that Lance’s false bravado lasts as long as it does.  It’s nearly a month after Pidge comes out to the team that Lance asks for them all to come to Blue’s hangar before their mid-”afternoon” training.  With everyone geared up for the session later, Hunk looks over his friends.  Shiro seems just as confused as himself, Pidge, Allura, and Coran, but Keith is standing next to Lance in way too close a proximity for all the fighting those two do.

“So, why are we here again?” Pidge asks when Lance looks up at Blue for the fourth time without saying anything.

Hunk sees Keith nudge his elbow into Lance’s arm.  Just what’s going on…?

“Right, so,” Lance starts before hanging on the “o” to drag out the moment.  Hunk can practically feel the nervous energy radiating from his friend as Lance looks between their friends.  “I wanted to talk to you guys.. I just..  We’ve all been out here for so long, and I want you to know that..  Well, I trust you.  I really do.  Out there, as Voltron, we’re all in each other’s heads.  We know what each other think and feel, but I know we still say things sometimes and I want to make sure that..  Well, I want to make sure you guys know what to call me.”

Oh he so called it.  Hunk knows what Lance is going to say.

Lance looks at Keith who nods in return, neither smiling nor frowning in a very Keith-like reassurance.  A glance to the others tells Hunk that everyone else is clueless.

“I..  I’m not comfortable with being called “he” all the time,” Lance explains.  “That’s not cause I’m not a guy, but..  I..”  Keith puts a hand on Lance’s shoulder.  It looks like that’s enough to give Lance a second wind.  “I don’t feel comfortable being called a guy.  I’m not a girl, either, so..  I guess that leaves me as non-binary?”

Okay, so maybe Hunk wasn’t expecting that.

“Nonbinary?” Coran asks.  “Suppose that is rather archaic..  Your people have had all this time and yet still only use a few pronouns, right?”

“Humans have only been around for around eight or nine thousand years,” Pidge attempts to explain.  “Plus, there are some cultures that see gender as something a lot more diverse than just us.  I mean, I’m a girl who was born a guy..  There’s some people on Earth with a lot of hang-ups about that, but things are getting better.”

“Exactly,” Shiro states.  He looks to Lance and Hunk watches Lance relax from the affirming conversation.  “You’d prefer “they” then?  Or is there something else?”

That smile on Lance’s face makes Hunk’s heart grow.  Yeah.  His friend isn’t a lot of things, but Hunk loves them.

Stiles courts Peter by leaving him the heads/corpses of his enemies - Gerard, Kate, those in the Alpha Pack that dared lay even a claw on Peter, even Meredith for violating Peter’s mind and then dumping all the blame on him for the deadpool business.

Of course, Stiles is always careful, always makes sure Peter has a solid alibi before he goes and deals with whoever has harmed Peter enough to deserve Stiles going after them.

And Peter is confused at first, and understandably suspicious (is someone trying to frame him and get him locked up or killed?), but it doesn’t take long for him to realize what all the bodies mean, that they’re courting gifts meant for him of all people, an archaic tradition even amongst werewolves (most go with flowers and other more socially acceptable customs these days, which is ever so boring in Peter’s opinion), to show that the one doing the courting is both willing and able to protect the one being courted, and Peter soon finds himself flattered and pleased by the attention.  Nobody’s ever courted him before.  It’s an exhilarating novelty.

And when other gifts begin appearing on his doorstep - a delicious cajun chicken pasta one time, a drool-worthy coffee and peanut butter chocolate cake another, and - most memorable - the bloody heart of an Alpha, still warm when Peter lifts it out of its rune-covered container with reverent hands - all to show that Peter’s secret admirer can provide for him as well, Peter decides that it’s high time to figure out who is courting him so that he can start returning the favour.

Inevitably, he realizes that it’s Stiles, which is even better.  He’s always been drawn to Stiles, attracted to his loyalty and cunning and sharp biting wit, and Peter is pleasantly surprised and utterly thrilled to find that Stiles is apparently equally drawn to Peter and also has no qualms about courting him the good old-fashioned way.

It’s impossible for Peter not to reciprocate, to show that he too can and will protect and provide for Stiles, that they can be magnificent and terrifying together, and that the fascination and growing affection and the increasingly powerful pull of mineminemine between them are entirely mutual.

Stiles has his own fair share of enemies now, and it’s infuriating how self-absorbed and neglectful people tend to be when it comes to Stiles, so Peter will rip out the throats of Stiles’ enemies and lay their carcasses at his feet, and he’ll care for Stiles so that the boy will never feel lonely or think himself forgotten again.

Peter can’t wait until they can hunt together.  His mate will look beautiful under the moon, drenched in blood and triumph with Peter at his side.

On Science and Craft

I told @ei-lena I would do this post (herein, Rant), so here it is:

I get told, often and repeatedly, that science has nothing to do with Craft. Whenever I point out how a scientific fact correlates with, and indeed even explains some aspects of, a magical property (be it an herb, a stone, or other ingredient), I am gently admonished that, while said fact is “interesting”, it has no place in a Pagan environment. Or sometimes, the admonishment is not so gentle.

I’ve been called stupid, blasphemous, brain-washed. And not by ancient crones, bent cackling over a cauldron! By people ranging from my parents’ age (Fifties), all the way down the age spectrum to children, a decade younger than I am! People who’ll happily take advantage of explainable science to have witchy apps on their smart phones, electric votives in place of candles, a french press or coffee maker to create potions (Things that would have been considered impossible less than a century ago), but refuse to acknowledge certain aspects of magic simply being a science we don’t quite understand yet. As if having a molecular explanation for a power makes it less.

Understanding that a chemical compound comprised of trinitrotoluene being exposed to a sudden electrical charge causes a massive explosion does not lessen the devastation of that explosion!

Understanding that the crystalline structure of certain stones means they transmute energy away from or towards the source of that energy doesn’t lessen the property of that stone!

A perfect example happened to me just a few days ago. I have an antique piece of scrimshaw, and a shard of fossilized dinosaur bone. The scrimshaw was made from the tooth of a sperm whale, the bone shard appears to be from a shattered bone of a large predator (species unknown). I was searching everywhere to find what kind of Craft aspects these two pieces could provide, but I found nothing, so I went to a chat room specifically geared towards pagans etc. to ask for opinions.

Overwhelmingly, the initial reaction was that I was a horrible person for owning scrimshaw, and that by purchasing it, I might as well have killed the whale myself.

First, let me remind everyone: This is an ANTIQUE. Could be a hundred years old for all I know, I bought it in an antique store because it was SCREAMING for me to take it. I have a deep love and respect for whales, and I hate what I know must have been done to this poor creature, but leaving it there was not going to undo what had been done LONG BEFORE I WAS BORN, and the pendant CHOSE me.

I was then told, in no uncertain, bitchy tones, that ivory of any kind had absolutely NO magical properties, except for whatever was left of the animal’s spirit that remained.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m very aware that this tooth still contains something of the animal’s spirit. I feel him looming over me whenever I touch it, at first an angry presence, but then a guarding one. I could write novels of what I experience when touching this tooth, but that would stray too far from the topic. Other than the overwhelming persona that remains very much alive within this tooth though, I feel other properties, within the structure of the ivory itself. I asked if it was possible that, since ivory is mostly calcium, if it could have similar properties to other stones that have a very high calcium structure. Again, I was shot down, in incredibly bitchy tones and words, saying that no product of an animal could have magical properties. I then presented the question regarding my fossil piece, suggesting that, since all the organic materials have been replaced with minerals, perhaps it would have the same properties as the stone around it? I was then told that, “That’s not how magic works”.

If a fossilized bone is now molecularly identical with, say, a piece of granite, why would that fossil not have similar properties to granite that has always been granite?

Take opalized ammonite. Sure, plenty of witches I’ve met agree that opalized ammonite has similar properties to Opal. Because, gee, it’s a fossil created under the same conditions that opal is created. But I have also met plenty of witches who insist ammonite has no mystical aspects, that it’s only use is to look pretty. Where do you get your logic?!

I have asked about using shed Shark’s Teeth as wand tips, and was told that, while it would be aesthetically pleasing, it would have no impact on the wand itself, since bones and teeth have no magical properties.

But again, Shark Ivory. Calcium based substance. Theoretically, it should have similar properties to say, Calcite, Limestone, or Marble. Hell, it seems generally acknowledged that pearls have magical properties.. Pearls are, not only mostly calcium, but they are an animal by-product, as much as teeth and bone! So, scientifically speaking, if calcite and marble have magical properties, then so should teeth and bone!

And sure, one could argue that that was an isolated incident, that a group of people sharing archaic beliefs or moral prejudices ganged up on me because I was an outsider who somehow offended their sensibilities. But that doesn’t explain all the times that I’ve tried becoming active in other pagan communities in three different cities, and at one point, whenever I’ve suggested using scientific fact or theory to enhance the Craft, I was told some variation of, “You’re ruining it”.

Again, ENHANCE the Craft. Not rationalize it, not disprove it, not replace it. ENHANCE.

Understanding how something works will only HELP you use it better! Yes, I know, the science we understand in this day and age still cannot explain many things in the Craft, but the science we DO know doesn’t cancel it out, either!

Witches everywhere I have been have treated me like some kind of pariah because I’ve been interested in the science behind why this stuff works. I suggested magnetic polarity between atmosphere and earth as the ‘fuel’ behind pendulum work and dowsing. Was told by a matronly baby boomer witch that I was overthinking it. I theorized that tarot and rune stones work for divination because of primal genetic memory from a time when our ancestors painted their stories on cave walls, I was told by a superior witch who knew so much more than I did that divination was a gift from the gods and that I shouldn’t question it so much, or it wouldn’t work for me. When I thought out loud that the structure of the soil plants were grown in probably changed the properties of those plants in subtle ways, since plants absorb so much of their nutrients from that soil, I was snapped at that, I wasn’t a Green Witch, so I shouldn’t talk about things I don’t understand.

This isn’t how we should be! We should embrace the sciences we DO understand! Knowing the shapes and strengths of a crystal’s structure will help you utilize the crystal to a fuller potential, AND help you in Cleansing it properly! Because, guess what? If you don’t understand that the structural makeup of that particular crystal is mostly sodium or alkali. you’re not going to know that cleansing it in water will destroy it! BECAUSE SCIENCE.

tl;dr: To understand is not to weaken. Too often, modern witches willfully lose themselves in the dark, screaming “Science is blasphemy!” when knowledge should be embraced.

The Death of the Beothuk

How a tribe of Newfoundland Indians suffered genocide at the hands of the Europeans

The aboriginal occupation of Newfoundland and Labrador goes back as far as 6,000 years, with at least four distinct groups having inhabited the region over the centuries.  First came the Maritime Archaic people, followed by the Arctic Small Tool Tradition, the Thule Eskimos and finally, The Beothuk, who became extinct soon after the arrival of Europeans who came to fish and eventually settle in Newfoundland.

The word Beothuk simply means “people.”  From the precious little that survives of it, their language appears to have been a form of Central Algonquin; the Beothuk were probably distant cousins of the Montagnais of Quebec and Labrador.  First contact may have occurred in 985 A.D. when the Norse were exploring the coasts of Newfoundland and Labrador.  The Vikings reported trading for furs with an indigenous people they had encountered and later battled with.

The first well-documented contact in the 15th Century indicates that at least in the beginning, relations were friendly.  Because of the tradition of painting their bodies red with ochre they came to be known to the Europeans as Red Indians, or red skins, a term that over time spread throughout North America.

Because the Beothuk were wiped out before any significant cultural exchange with Europeans, very little is known about them.  Only a handful of artifacts exist from this culture, most of which were taken from graves.  The first centuries of contact were devastating for all North American natives.  Between 1600 and 1700, an estimated 90% of the populations of first nations who made contact were lost, mostly to disease.  While is believed that some 12 million people lived in North America when Columbus arrived, the number was rapidly reduced as settlement spread.  Although Mic Mac (Mi’kmaq) and Maliseet tribes carried on extensive trade with Europeans from very early on, the Beothuk were never able to secure such a relationship.

Another source of animosity arose from the tendency of the Beothuk to scavenge metal from the fishing camps once the seasons had ended.  Every summer hundreds of ships came to fish Newfoundland’s waters, and when they left in the fall the Beothuk would come to see what they could take from the camps.  They had learned to forge metal and employed this knowledge in the making of weapons.  Sometimes boats were burned to obtain the nails in them.
It made little difference to the Europeans that they had taken over the traditional summering grounds of the Beothuk, forcing them inland and away from the birds, fish and seals that constituted their summer food supplies.  Even the salmon were netted before they could get far enough upstream to reach the Indians.  This put them in a position where they were forced to steal to survive, but when they did, they were often hunted down like animals and shot on sight.

In February of 1790 a party went looking for Beothuk on a retaliatory raid.  It was their intention to kill all they met though they would give them “fair play,” and not fire if the enemy fled.  At one village where the enemy did flee, they burned all the canoes and three of the four wigwams.  One hundred deer skins were stolen and 500 arrows thrown into a brook.  The entire winter’s supply of cariboo – 40 or 50 twenty five square foot packages of pressed, frozen meat – was destroyed.  At that time of the year, when the people were most vulnerable, it would have been more humane to shoot them.  This type of cruel, inhuman retribution often resulted in entire villages perishing.

In 1818 an open boat, loaded and ready for market, was stolen from one John Peyton.  Since it was a considerable loss, he obtained permission from the governor to seek his stolen property and to capture live one of the Beothuk.  Upon entering a small encampment Peyton’s men captured a woman who was unable to flee because she had recently given birth.  When her husband tried to rescue her, despite being greatly outnumbered, he was killed.  She was taken to St. John’s while her newborn was left behind and reportedly died two days later.  When she contracted consumption, she was eventually ordered to be returned to her people, but she died on the way and her body was left at the abandoned camp.  This woman, Demasduwit, known to the English as Mary March, was one of the last of the Beothuk people.

Another Beothuk woman, Shanawdithit, was captured in 1823 and survived until 1829 despite having contracted consumption.  From this woman came nearly all the information we possess regarding her people.  William Cormack, president of the Beothuk Institute, learned some of her language, as she learned some English, and he made notes on Beothuk history, mythology and vocabulary.  Shanawdithit drew maps and pictures for Cormack, and it was said that she never spoke of her people without tears.

We know that the Beothuk were a unique culture and that the land and sea provided amply for their needs.  They were seasonal migrants who spent the summers taking advantage of the bounty of the sea and who moved inland in the winter where they survived largely on cariboo.  Although little is known about them, their artistic style was eloquent and distinct from other tribes, and some intriguing bits of information have been preserved.  In 1820 an English expedition up the Exploits River discovered a tree, 40 feet in height, which had been completely stripped of branches and bark, with only a small tuft remaining on top.  From top to bottom it was painted in alternating circles of red and white.  While the function of this tree is a mystery, it is obvious from examples such as this that the Beothuk had a sophisticated culture and religion.

In 1827 William Cormack made his second trip across Newfoundland in hopes of finding Beothuk for the purpose of learning more about them.  Upon reaching Red Indian Lake he discovered one of the great tragedies of North American first nations subjugation. Only scant signs of former habitation remained and all the birch trees had been ringed to use the inner layer for food.  When the captured Shanawdithit died in 1829 the Beothuk race died with her.  Later in the century hundreds of thousands of other native North Americans would suffer similar fates in the great Indian wars of the American west.  In 1862 Colonel Chivington of the US army gave a public speech in Denver, Colorado advocating the killing and scalping of all Indians, declaring that, “Nits make lice.”  And in a massacre of 105 Cheyenne women and children he made good his word, scalping and mutilating even babies.

Although we are aware of atrocities perpetrated against first nations in the United States, many Canadians may be shocked to learn about what happened in Newfoundland and even in the Maritime Provinces.  We are not taught in school that an entire race of non-aggressive people from eastern Canada was destroyed by genocide.  As is the case with slavery in Canada, eastern Canada in particular, history seems to have chosen to ignore the terrible price exacted upon aboriginal Canadians in the conquest of the New World.

Written in the early 1990s

Yeah, I had to make an illustration of what I was talkin’  about when I mentioned ‘more robots using archaic weapons’ because people kept saying ‘Gundams’ and I meant something more magical for a robot with a sword. I guess this is closer to Automatons from Magic the Gathering than I thought but this would be a fun little story haha

Continuing my usual stand that children should always be paired up with robots for sharing adventures together. 

Current Drug Policy

Technology rapidly advances, but our drug policies remain archaic. America feeds people toxic or habit-forming prescription drugs so that corporations can profit, and they attempt to outlaw all drugs in which corporations have trouble profiting on.

It’s funny that they spent so many resources on those anti-drug campaigns, telling everyone to stay away from drugs, but they did not mention alcohol, caffeine, anti-psychotics/anti-depressants. It is not until later that we realize it was an effort to shift profits in their direction, knowing that humans will always use some sort of substance for some purpose.

But a lack of understanding about these drugs has caused many of the problems that we see in our society today.

anonymous asked:

But we’re in the modern world, it’s not like we’re in the archaic ages where people were more violent

Dude, you’re just rationalizing the fact you’re skinny and weak and why women should like you anyway. 

Hit the gym and stop making excuses.

Prejudice That Destroys Children’s Pride”

I’ve had yet another theory hit me after seeing a brilliantly designed Zootopia shirt at Target.

The phrase that was printed on the shirt was, “Anyone can be Anything.”

And then it suddenly occurred to me as I thought about Nick and his past.

From what you can conjecture, he looked quite enthusiastic about joining what must have been the Boy Scouts.

However, even with something as seemingly innocent as this can have its dark sides.

With a youth organization like this, it’s highly probable that their motto of being brave and honest means they’ll apply it to those who “look” the part rather than actually live up to it.

And seeing as Nick is a Fox, there is a possibility that he received the stigma of being someone cowardly and mistrustful.

Who knows, maybe those who were jealous of his strong ambition and skills used the fact that “He’s a fox“ to ensure that he gets rejected and kicked out by everyone.

And worse still it’s something that followed him for the rest of his life in which people assumed

“You’re a fox, you can’t be trusted,”

until at last he was placed in a job society would deem fitting for him.

Can you imagine just how heartbreaking and cruel it is to put that into a kid’s head at a young age that they can’t be what they want to be based on prejudice ideals?

With the repetition of history’s cruelty of judging others and classifying them in a role that the masses perceives as truth, I have a strong feeling that this movie is just what people need (particularly kids) to shake those archaic notions to help people be what they WANT to be instead of what they HAVE to be.

blvckmvgics  asked:

I’m sending you a meme harper pls do it or my eggy heart will be broken (jk you don’t have to) 📱 for mads and will!!!! (or Richie and Bas. Or both???)

mads and will

[text]: i found an empty room in the back right hallway :)
[text]: dad is on a warpath tonight, tell your family to stay away and don’t provoke him
[text]: you know, i just really don’t understand why people need to think i have the same ideals as my parents, i can be my own person and go against the political agenda the older generation set because some of their beliefs are so archaic? why are people so set in their ways?
[text]: you looked so handsome in your suit tonight
[text]: i ran out of cream cheese and bagels… can you get me some on your way here?
[text]: do you ever wonder what it would’ve been like if our parents weren’t running against each other? would we still be with each other if it wasn’t for them? are we only together because we like rebelling against them? would you still be interested in me?

richie and bas

[text]: thank you, again, for the puppy. hyas is going to hate me, but it seems like i’ve gotten attached to her already.
[text]: i know you’re against hurting them, but this is war, you have to understand that some sacrifices have to be made and i’d rather them not be on our side. we’re a family, bas, remember that.
[text]: i named her coronis, by the way. she’s like a shining star in my life, kind of like you sometimes.
[text]: hey, are you okay? i haven’t heard from you in a couple of hours, is everything alright? did garbage get out again?
[text]: we need to talk, meeting at tartarus later.
[text]: i know i don’t say this often enough, but i love you. you’ve been one of the few constants in my life since germany and you’ve been one of the most loyal. i don’t know what i’d do if i lost you.

anonymous asked:

You're not a "radical feminist" none of you are. You're just transphobes and transmisogynists. Feminism is about femininity. Hence FEMINism. It's not "femal"ism. That means all feminine people should be included in your politics, most importantly trans women because we actually work for our right to be feminine. "Sex"-based oppression is archaic. Feminine people are oppressed now, not vaginas. Now please choke and let the real women handle feminism, it's clearly too complicated for you.

Anon hit all the cliches, you guys. 

- Sex-based oppression don’t real, only femininity based oppression! Which is why unfeminine women totally face no discrimination or hatred at all. 

- Let the “real women” (men) dictate what feminism is because they know better.

- Transwomen are better women cause they work hard to fulfill all the gender stereotypes men expect of women!


The fuck is a “right to be feminine” anon? What even is “feminine”? How is it the basis of feminism? I’m going to bet you can’t answer these questions but I’ll probably never hear from you again anyway. 

You know what breaks my heart? I am literally 100000% not bothered by Eleanor being there. Like not at all. Louis is talking to whoever is beside her while playing with his fingers and she is playing with her hair while looking at the camera. It’s a business agreement. That’s what bothers me. That’s what breaks my heart and makes me feel like crying. The fact that we live in a society where bearding is still a necessary practice is heartbreaking. I ache for these two lovely boys caught in the middle of this. I want them to be happy. I want them to be able to show the world that happiness. I want management companies and pr people to no longer feel the need to use this archaic practice. I want people to be able to love who they love without fear of what it could mean for their careers. Everyone deserves to be happy and loved. Everyone deserves to be able to express that happiness and love without inhibitions.

sahaana  asked:

I don't think you really understand what being a Christian means. it says in the Bible that 'you (Christians) are not your own for you were born at a great price' (Jesus' death) so Christians are set aside and different and are not of this world

Without any intention to be condescending, I know what the Bible says. I preached it and taught it to children and youth in your age group. Being a former Christian, I definitely know what being a Christian means. Thus, it follows that I know what is meant by “not of this world.” Given this, I would say that your exegesis is lacking. Jesus actually stated: “If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you” (John 15:19). This is perfectly in keeping with Matthew 10:21-22. You think you’re not of this world because you believe that a first century Jew died for your sins and sold you an eternal truth, and not because you actually know that to be the case. Like I stated in that post, Christians hold beliefs that require them to view themselves as foreigners among indigenous peoples. Everyone who is not a Christian, unless they accept your lord, your savior, and your beliefs, is viewed as the inevitable antagonist to a story you believe must unfold before Christ’s second advent, as the persecutors that were foretold. 

Your religion is akin to antisocial personality disorder: it has no regard for other cultures, beliefs, and ways of life; this is why Christianity has been at the helm of empires and has been the impetus of ethnic cleansing and cultural silencing. It led the British to label the people of India “savages”; it led the colonialists to murder Native Americans and bury their traditions along with them; it led the white American to enslave the blacks and justify it. Christianity would have you declare that all non-Christians are potential threats and that non-belief, people fighting for their rights, and the advance of science and technology are drops in the apocalyptic bucket, signs of the end times. Every earthquake, every famine, every war is looked upon with a hidden grin because Jesus promised that such events would precede the end times; it is, to your mind, a confirmation of his words.

6 And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not alarmed, for this must take place, but the end is not yet. 7 For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be famines and earthquakes in various places. 8 All these are but the beginning of the birth pains.

9 “Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and put you to death, and you will be hated by all nations for my name’s sake. 10 And then many will fall away and betray one another and hate one another. 11

Matthew 24:6-11

Emphasis mine. This is why Christians secretly cheer when stories like the ones about the Oregon shooting circulate. This is why they seek persecution, even where there isn’t any. You expect people to hate you and persecute you for the sake of your beliefs. It is, after all, what Jesus purportedly promised.

I understand what it means to be a Christian so well that I fearlessly choose not to identify as one. There are no heavenly rewards, no fire and brimstone or lake of fire, no Satan and legions of demons, no god above us, no Jesus at the right hand. There’s just a set of archaic beliefs via which people have sacrificed their lives or tortured, mutilated, and murdered others, and usually for sake of differences of belief. I understand what it means to be a Christian so much that I understand that there’s a consequence if you decided to renounce your “not of this world” mentality. As stated in my post, it may lead to you challenging your faith as a whole, doubting it in its entirety. I added that I can’t ask that of Christians because renouncing one’s faith is a personal journey that I described as a land to be traversed on one’s own time and at one’s own pace. That does not mean that I won’t nudge you. That does not mean that I won’t ask critical questions or give you an angle you won’t find in Sunday school or on your church pulpit. Those people believe as you do and they’ll make even a man willing to sacrifice his own son sound pretty, i.e., Abraham and Isaac. Well, I’m not your pastor nor your Sunday school teacher. I’m an atheist who doesn’t shy away from exposing the ugly that Christian ministers hide.

The Earth faces the inevitable Red Giant phase of the Sun, the ensuing destruction of the universe. Things are not beautiful because they endure. Things are beautiful because, like a candle, they flicker for a brief time; learn to appreciate the temporary light of things around you. That all is temporary doesn’t mean you’re plunged into nihilistic despair. As mentioned, your would-be children will someday die; does it follow that you neglect them whilst they live? So why must we neglect the Earth because people like you believe a new heaven and new earth are around the bend? I’m simply stating that there is no us and them, no foreigners and indigenous peoples; everyone is of this world and it’s high time we act like it. I’m not your enemy because I don’t accept your beliefs. I’m not your persecutor. I have no hate to offer you. Jesus lied to you. He offered you life and life in abundance and what was actually on offer was ball and chain. I speak truth though I know you’ll fail to see it as such. And that’s fine. Like I said, if you ever embark on a journey away from your faith, it is on you to decide when and how. But until then, do refrain from thinking that people misunderstand your religion because they don’t believe it or see it differently from the way you do.

anonymous asked:

hi, i was just wondering if you could clarify why it is problematic for the AVEN survey to include questions about romantic orientation? like, i get that AVEN has some issues. their methodology is pretty subpar, and they're generally shitty when it comes to survivors of sexual violence (ace or otherwise). but i'm not quite sure what the issue with rom orientations is?? not trying to start a fight, just curious. i ID as aro ace and i want to make sure the way i ID isn't stepping on other folks?

there r a couple diff reasons that i posted that particular screencap:

the first is just that, uhhhh, WTFromantic is patently absurd. “grayromantic” or “demiromantic” are also ridiculous and founded on skewed ideas of what the average human experience with romance is. like… honestly, there does not need to be a specific term that means “only starts falling for someone after knowing them,” that’s literally how romance works??? it’s ridic.

but those are quibbles with specific parts of that section. to answer your question more broadly, i disagree with the concept of romantic orientation. there are a couple reasons.

  1. the sexual orientations don’t need romantic counterparts - all of the -sexual suffixes refer to “sex” as in male or female, not doin it. now that may feel somewhat archaic to some people, who feel that our ideas about “sex” and maleness and femaleness have been complicated since then, but it’s clear that the intent in creating these words and even the phrase sexual orientation has always been - to what sex (or fill in gender if you’d like) are you oriented? not “who do u wanna bone” but “who attracts you.” thus, heterosexual, for example, doesn’t just have to mean that jane wants to have sex with dudes, and in common english it usually never means only that she wants to have sex with guys. it means she’s attracted to them, wants to date them, want to have sex with them, whatever. it just means, she’s oriented toward guys in this part of her life. so the original coining of the hetero-, homo-, bi-, and aromantic terms stemmed from a false - even a non - problem.
  2. i truly do not believe it is an easy or even possible task to separate out “sexual attraction” from “romantic attraction.” no, that doesn’t mean that i think it’s impossible to lack a desire for sex but still want to partner with people. rather, i think what asexuals call “sexual attraction” and “romantic attraction” are more nuanced and interconnected than just “do i wanna have sex with them” and “do i wanna date them.” there is significant interplay between the two, and i think if you asked the average person, who was not obsessed with picking apart every type of “attraction” and classifying it, they would struggle to clearly delineate where one began and the other ended. i mean, lbr, i don’t think i’ve ever read an asexual blogger put forward a description of these two that did not vastly exaggerate what both of these attractions are in order to make them sound as distinct as possible.
  3. do they even have any social purpose? because “sexual attraction” and “romantic attraction” are so very intertwined, the vast majority of people have a “match.” or, what do asexual bloggers call it, orientation congruence?? you’re aro ace, i’m homosex homorom. does adding a romantic orientation add any information, or does it just feed into the current tumblr obsession with splitting hairs and categorizing everything, in the hopes of finding some kind of new marginalization? some asexual bloggers contend that there are some people who are incongruent - for example, all of the hetero, bi, and gay asexuals. but that’s not an argument for romantic orientations (see #4). other incongruences involve two attractions - the fabled homoromantic heterosexual, who definitely does not exist. perhaps there are homoromantic bisexuals - but are they any different from the many bi women who despite their attraction to men choose not to partner with them for other reasons? is a “homoromantic bisexual” really just a special kind of bisexual, or are they just a “bisexual who’s only looking to date girls atm”? idrts
  4. now, what about str8, bi, and gay aces - or aromantics who are str8, bi, or gay? remember my 1st point about what the “sex” in hetero/bi/homosexual means? yeah. imo a str8 ace is also a heterosexual - a person oriented toward the “opposite” sex. the problem, imo, is that people try to place asexuality on the same dimensions as the rest. in that case, asexual would only refer to people like u - attracted to no one. but many people use it only as “no sex feelings,” which is entirely independent from to whom you’re attracted! it may be more useful to either accept this concept of asexuality and hand it over to u aro aces, as attraction to no one, and form community simply around lower sex drive or interest in sex - or, trash that concept and instead posit asexuality as a different measure of sexuality altogether, not of ur orientation but of ur general sex-type feelings. (i have reservations about this second course of action, ofc, bc i feel like it will fall into the same problems as current ace discourse does wrt misogyny, alienation of survivors, etc.) tbh i kind of feel like whether u wanna have sex with ur partners or not is a strange thing to make a core aspect of ur identity and more something that would be shared on a case-by-case basis - and before i get tons of angry anons, i want to mention again that i’m a person who has a p low interest in sex itself.

i hope this wall of text makes sense, anon - i had to go clothes shopping with my mom today and it was exhausting, so i might be writing in gibberish rn for all i know. u don’t necessarily have to agree w me or anything, i just hope u can see where i’m coming from/what i’m thinking!

I have no tolerance for people who expect me to give, give, and give and don’t offer even basic kindness and accessibility in return. If you don’t value my time, if you don’t respect my jobs-my means of survival-and aren’t empathetic to my work ethic and the fatigue it gives me, then I literally could not give two shits about you. I don’t buy into the archaic moronic delusion that people are worthy of your fawning and deference just because they’re older or that you have any obligation to someone because of any reason other than them showing mutual respect. Period.

I wish instead of moving on to more genres Hirohiko Araki had delved into progressively more archaic prog musicians so people around part 6 would’ve ended up running around shouting “Face the wrath of my invincible stand, [The Myths and Legends of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table]!”

pinkieblues  asked:

Newt and Hermann arguing over the nuances of british vs american english.

*rubs hands together* #personal experience

I have so many feels/thoughts about this so I’m not even going to write a ficlet. 

  • Headcanon: the only pronunciation that Newton NEVER corrects Hermann on is his name. He loves the way Hermann says “NeeUUUUuton,” because it’s just so delicious and it turns him on just thinking about/watching the way his lips move when he says it. 
  • “Dude, you have to stop using archaic phrases because people aren’t gonna understand what the hell you’re talking about.” “Then they should make an effort.” “You’re not gonna even try?” “No"…
  • "Newton, I have not now, nor have ever been a ‘dude.’ You say that I use archaic phrases, when dude is in fact an 1870s dandy who resides in the city. I care little about my clothing and live in a laboratory.” “It’s been reappropriated. Now it just means, like, anyone, even women.” “Then by definition it has not been reappropriated. I believe you mean ‘semantic change’.” *Newton sighs dramatically*
  • *Newton finds a way to say “bag of dicks” in a sentence* “Would you kindly stop using vulgar American slang.” “Hey, you said the phrase ‘cock up’ the other day. Sounds pretty vulgar to me.”
  • “Why do you roll your r’s? You sound about 90 years old when you do that." 
  • "Why would you want people to call you by the name of an amphibian?”
  • Somehow they get into a discussion about the mathematician Anthony John Lewis MBE and Newt gets annoyed that Hermann uses the British pronunciation “AN-Tony” instead of the American “AnTHony.” “He’s English, I shall use the appropriate pronunciation.”
  • “Oh my God, stop calling it ‘maths.’” “Newton, I refuse to get into another argument about ‘notional agreement’ with you.”
  • *Newton silently mocks the way Hermann pronounces ‘immediately.’* “ImmeeDJietly” “I heard that.”
  • “I going to put you in the hospital.” “You mean, ‘I’m going to put you in hospital.’*UGH HERMANN*
  • “One laboratory divided by the same language.” “Why don’t we just argue in German?”
  • This is WAY too fun.