religious argument

I understand the thinking behind the “but asexuality is close to celibacy so shouldn’t the religious communities love you?” argument, but that’s not how it happened for me in the real world.

I’m not out at my church. I know my church is homophobic, so to test the waters for attitudes toward asexuality I waited until the topic of homosexuality came up and suggested hypothetically what if there was a person who didn’t feel sexual attraction. We went around a few times on specifics and once we settled on my original definition, these were the opinions I got:

-Everyone has a sexual nature; it’s God’s gift to the human race for pleasure in marriage and for procreation. The idea of an asexual person is absurd.

-Someone claiming to not feel sexual attraction is repressing the sexual nature given to them by God. It’s as bad as saying God made a mistake when He created you.

-Unless someone is specifically giving up marriage (and therefore sex) for the ministry, and has been so long without it that he’s trained himself not to think about it, there’s nobody that doesn’t want sex.

-People who don’t want sex are being selfish toward their future partners.

-They’ll want sex eventually.

-Maybe they’re just scared.

-Celibacy is a command for us to follow until marriage. Until we marry we are to focus on the things of the Lord. So I see what you’re getting at, but no, nobody just doesn’t have sexual attraction. God built it into everyone for the purpose of procreation.

-I don’t see how this is actually hurting anyone. Maybe God’s called them to be single.

-[shooting down the previous person] But nobody just doesn’t have sexual feelings.

-Being like that is worse than homosexuality. At least a [slur] can be converted back to God. But a person like that would have to have their head so far in the sand they’d never see the light of day. They’d be so self-deluded that they wouldn’t even understand the concept of straight, marital love.

So no, my religious community doesn’t actually love this part of me. There’s one friend I have in the church who knows and supports me, and he keeps his mouth shut.

Anyway, this is just an example of a small-town church’s view on asexuality. I’m sure not all churches are like this, but I’m sure there are too many churches (and mosques and shrines and temples and lodges and synagogues, etc.) that are.

Asexuals, reblog with your own religious experiences?

Humans are space orcs, eh?

I’m new to this, but I love what I’m reading in the feed lately, so, trying my hand!

Some ideas:

What if the greatest diplomacy problem in dealing with humans is that they seem to lie about past events constantly, even to someone who witnessed the same events?  Then it’s discovered that humans have recording devices of all kinds– security cameras, diaries, mp3– and the problem becomes clear.  Humans lie, but not that badly.  The poor, fretful creatures just have a species-wide brain defect.  Kindly aliens take to recording every event and encounter they can, then preface every diplomatic meeting with a record swap so the humans can brush up on what actually happened and the aliens can get some insight into what the humans have been falsely thinking happened.  Ambassadors to Earth get supplementary training in how to handle people with memory impairments, and human ambassadors to other worlds start hiring aliens– ANY aliens– to be their assistants.  Everything smooths out after that.

Religion.  Aliens intellectually understand how religion works and that there are different kinds, but they don’t really “get” it.  The biggest confusion regards whether the humans, who do seem to have some sort of empathic abilities at least, are actually communing with incorporeal beings/forces… and if so, why some humans seem able to commune with more than one, while other humans not at all.  Notable scholars have decided that the rituals and paraphernalia have nothing to do with the beings or forces being communed with, but muddied the matter by suggesting that the rituals may be important for a human’s ability to commune.  Alien non-scholars, eager to accommodate this new species and prove that space is nothing to be afraid of– nobody wants a repeat of the H’j’g’rcxin Xenophobia disaster– simply treat any and all religious requests as vital necessities for their human guests and crewmen.  Accommodation becomes so ordinary that when the first religious argument erupts between an engineer and a navigator, the biggest shock is that one of them objects to the other wearing a turban, something which does not affect work performance in any way.

Styling.  Alien species each have their own primary sense that they rely on, and when they find out that humans primarily rely on sight, well.  Reliant on sight means that surface patterns and colorings are particularly important to them, right?  They will have evolved to be individually distinctive in appearance?  New human crew are automatically assigned a mentor from another vision-reliant species, so someone will be able to tell them apart until the auditory and pheromone labels are attached to their uniforms.  Then Abby comes to mess with a new haircut and sparkly chapstick one day, and the mentor has no idea who she is or how she got aboard.

Word of Stabby the Space Roomba spreads, and soon every ship with a human captain or sufficiently high number of human crew has a Stabby.  Names vary, but most of them are Stabby.  One ship becomes low-key known for sending out broadcasts of Stabby McStabberson, son of Stabberson, son of Stabber, and its adventures stabbing juice boxes in zero-G.

Aesthetics.  Humans have a bewildering tendency to open starmaps or sneak into the scientific observation module at odd times, including with a mate or offspring, and just stare at open space.  Not even particular stars, although they like to study and talk about particular stars and clusters at times, but just, the whole of space.  Why do they do it?  Nobody knows.  Humans behave as though intoxicated during these times, but productivity lowers dramatically if they are barred access– if barring access even works in the first place, given humans’ seemingly endless ability to get into places where they aren’t supposed to be.

Fire.  Due to different atmospheric content, inability to heal from burns, or just plain never needing to cook their food, no alien species has ever utilized fire as a tool.  When humans say that learning to use fire may have been the start of their civilization, everybody believes that the humans are just talking a tough game to make up for their lower technology level, or– once they learn about human hierarchies– to compensate for a perceived lack of political status.  Then a human sees a catastrophic explosion on a hostile planet and laughs.  Then another shushes panicking engineers and smothers an accidental fire with some garments.  Then another builds a bonfire out of dead plantlife and a shredded religious document to warm an injured alien crewman after xir endothermic suit is punctured and the planet rotates away from its sun.  Humans– soft, cuddly, pack-bonds-even-with-inanimate-objects humans– are comfortably in control of the most terrifying force of disaster the galaxy has ever known.  Aliens stop being surprised that we nearly made ourselves extinct so many times in history.

“Why does your larval stage look so similar to your mature stage?  How do you know when a human is old enough to leave the Pit of Offspring?  Or to mate?”

okay pro-lifers, gather ‘round

We’re going to ignore the blatant hypocrisy of your entire movement, the science, and the common fucking sense for a minute. I just have one question for you:

Where in the Bible does God forbid abortion? Because I have the weirdest feeling that none of you have actually read your own Good Book.

Go ahead, go check. I’ll wait. And no, don’t quote Psalms at me, don’t give me your inferences and implications thereof. I want a nice, clear, explicit ruling, like ‘Do not steal’ or ‘Honour no other god before Me.’

…No? Oh, that’s right. Because the only time any part of the Bible explicitly mentions a punishment for ‘human-caused miscarriage’ is Exodus 21:22-25.

Have you not read that recently? I’ll summarise for you: if two men are fighting, and one of them hits a pregnant woman, and a miscarriage is caused, the offender must pay a fine to the woman’s husband. 

Yes, you heard me. Causing an abortion was punishable by the ancient world’s equivalent of a parking ticket

(And don’t you even with the whole ‘But if a fatality does occur, then you must give life for life’. That’s referring to the death of the mother, not the fetus. The mother is viewed as a living person; the ‘death’ of an unborn fetus is viewed as property damage. Check the original Hebrew.)

The Bible says God knows us in the womb (which does not translate to ‘we are sentient and alive in the womb’, before you say it) but Genesis explicitly states (Gen 2:7) that the first human being did not live until God breathed on them and they started to breathe. They were not alive until they breathed

From a biblical standpoint, a baby isn’t a living baby, isn’t a person, until it’s breathing. You can make the argument that this also applies to any fetus that could breathe on its own if given the chance, i.e. any fetus that has grown to the point it could survive outside the womb unassisted/with minimal assistance. But it absolutely, categorically contradicts all the bs you’re spouting about an embryo being a living sentient creature and abortion therefore being murder.

I studied this stuff for six years; I don’t think you morons have studied it for six minutes

If you have a pro-life stance from a non-religious argument, that’s an entirely different thing. But shut up about God and sinners and going to Hell and ‘life begins at conception’. Fuck off, and read your own texts, because it’s just fucking embarrassing to listen to you announcing to the whole damn world that you don’t even know your own religion.

Seriously. It’s pathetic.

pianoplayersara  asked:

Do you have any non religious arguments against abortion?


Current biology research shows us that, once fertilization takes place in humans, the resulting zygote is an individual organism and a member of the human species. This organism is self-directed, which means it develops from within using its own unique DNA (as opposed to, for instance, how a car is put together one piece at a time).

In fact, for the first week (prior to implantation), the human embryo is not directly connected to the mother, but continues to grow and develop from a single-celled organism to a blastocyst with hundreds of cells that at this point begin to differentiate (different cells are going to develop into different body systems).

The development is gradual and continuous, which means there is no definite point after fertilization where we can say that the human embryo/fetus has become something different that it wasn’t before. All of our descriptions of stages of development and the terms we use are arbitrary and only for our own benefit in understanding what happens.

Birth itself is simply a change in location for the fetus. We change our terminology, but the fetus/newborn doesn’t change in any significant way.

If this is the case, we can easily say that the fetus is a member of the human species.

However, this means nothing if we don’t know how to treat members of the human species. Science cannot answer that question - it can only tell us what the fetus is and what it does. At this point, we have to turn to philosophy and ethics.

Most people can agree that all human adults and human children have human rights and deserve equal treatment.

Most people also agree that while animals should not be abused or neglected, they don’t deserve equal treatment with humans. If they did, the punishment for a hit-and-run would be the same whether the victim was a squirrel or a human toddler.

But why?

We have to have a consistent explanation for equal treatment that tells us, without ambiguity, who does and doesn’t have rights.

Our explanation must include human adults and human infants, but exclude animals.

If we base our explanation on ability, such as self-awareness, sentience, verbal ability, etc. we run the risk of either excluding some human adults or infants or including squirrels.

However, if we base our explanation on the common humanity shared by human adults and human infants, we satisfy all three requirements with an explanation that should make sense to us.

This explanation, that all humans deserve equal treatment regardless of race, gender, age, sexual orientation, or ability, means that a human fetus (or even a zygote) deserves equal treatment because it is human.

This means that if it is wrong to intentionally kill a 2-year-old, it is wrong to intentionally kill a fetus, regardless of the fetus’s stage of development. Therefore, if we agree that it should be illegal to kill 2-year-olds, it should also be illegal to kill fetuses.

A law based on this fact would simply be the existing murder statute applied to all human beings equally, as the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution already requires.

This would mean that it would be illegal for abortionists to kill preborn children. The mother of the preborn child would be considered a second victim of a medical professional who chose to violate the law and medical ethics.

tl;dr: Fetuses are biologically human. All human beings have equal rights. Fetuses have the same rights as everybody else.

anonymous asked:

Does Judaism speak of the love of God? That's been a major tenet of whatever church my parents have taken me to. Thanks for reading and I hope for a reply <3

Yes, it really does. The language and the understanding is just different.

In Judaism, in Jewish culture, family always comes first. Our blood family – including the friendships that are our adopted blood – and our community. G-d is part of that. 

I’ll just presume that you’ve seen some kind of Jewish comedy with over-bearing mothers and annoyed, downtrodden children. That comes from a lot of experience. Not all mothers, but it’s a staple. My mother’s like that. In those comedies, what doesn’t come across is the fierce love of those mothers, because it sometimes feels like control. And sometimes it’s control, too. It doesn’t show how much the children still adore their mothers, it just shows how annoyed and frustrated they are – and that’s true, too. 

Christianity has, to me at least, more of a separated love. You see G-d as this father figure that’s slightly removed and is utterly perfect in every way, with no flaws and no room for criticism because of that perfection.

We – or at least the religious Jews that I know – see G-d as perfect-imperfect family.

Sure, we can bitch and complain and snort about how wrong G-d is here and argue the point over religious teachings until the argument becomes bitter, but there isn’t that wall of separation. We can bitch and complain the same way that we bitch and complain about our families. We still adore. And G-d could bitch and complain about us, be furious like any parent, but will never stop loving. 

And I think that’s down to us seeing ourselves as G-d’s partners. Yes, we pray, yes, we worship, but at the same time, we don’t have this sense of, “If you just pray to G-d, then He will provide.” We have to work to achieve what we want. We pray for guidance and strength and support, but if we don’t meet G-d halfway, then there’s nothing that He can do.

I know this doesn’t cover all of Christianity, but I want to compare the Christians that go to confession and Jews at Yom Kippur.

At confession – bear with my limited knowledge here – a Christian goes to a priest and confesses their sins and G-d absolves them.

At Yom Kippur, when we pray for forgiveness, yes, we ask for G-d’s forgiveness, but that doesn’t absolve us of the terrible things that we’ve done to others. We have to go to others, not G-d, to be forgiven. And we have to make amends ourselves. We then have to learn to forgive ourselves as we do our best to learn from the mistakes of the previous year and strive not to make them again. G-d can’t absolve us of those concrete sins. He can’t wipe the slate clean with others. We can’t say, “Well, we prayed so the bad things that we did are fine now because G-d says so.” It just doesn’t work like that.

That doesn’t dismiss what you believe, or belittle how your love works with G-d. 

Judaism isn’t Christianity-Lite and Christianity isn’t Judaism-Lite. We’re playing two entirely different sports on two entirely different fields. Our religious experiences with G-d are entirely different. 

And I suppose, through writing that, it sounds like our understanding of G-d is one that paints Him as being limited from your perspective, which I totally understand. But for us, it’s more a case of Him not being the sort of parental figure that takes on everything and will do everything for us. I suppose what I’m saying is that our G-d is more the parent that goes, “Well, it’s your life, and you know what I’m not happy about, so if you need help I’m here, but you’ve got your own responsibilities too.”

So, basically, we just have two entirely different viewpoints about faith. Which is great.

I just had a long discussion with my parents about how basically and given Discworld book would be a better thing to read in school than Lord of The Flies.

Reason number one: all of the same lessons are taught.

In LoTF, the reader is supposed to learn about mob mentality, oppression, and general prejudice, yes? Thud! is a good example of all of this. You’ve got two different groups of people fighting because Reasons, and the main character coming to terms with his own subconscious racism. What a damn good thing to teach high schoolers!

Reason number two: none of them are nearly so depressing.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I can not think of a single Terry Pratchett book that ends on a bad note. Not one. LoTF was painful for me to read, because all of the characters were making horrible, murderous decisions because… plot??? Boys will be boys?? The base instincts of humanity?? I am the author and everyone else sucks??? 

Reason number three: they are fun to read!

This kind of goes along with the last one, but the fact that Pratchett combines relatable characters and a good sense of humor with real world scenarios (going back to Thud! with the internalized racism) makes the books a joy to read! I have, out of the six books I’ve had to read for school, been indifferent or even hated four of them. I didn’t want to read any of them! I read two books a week for three frippin years! And I didn’t want to read the books they chose! I, just. 

In conclusion: LoTF sucks, Thud! would be a much better choice.

If there’s one main thing I want non-Jews, specifically of the white Christian variety, to understand, it’s that there are ways of thinking about things – culture, tradition, argument, religious rules, loving thy enemy (or not), religious rites, intermarriage – that are different across cultures.

It seems like a lot of the time, white Christians (this includes secular people who are culturally Christians) assume that everyone thinks about things the same way. They assume that cultures have different foods and traditions (sometimes, unfortunately, they don’t even assume this) but that everyone thinks about the world the same way. They don’t.

The ways you think are not universal. People from another culture – including subcultures within a general culture – think about things differently and have different paradigms. Try to understand that.

queencityqlass  asked:

Speaking of Edward/Angela, that makes me think they could have been a solid pairing. Like he respects her and thinks highly of her relative to the other students. They arguably could've been a healthier ship since Angela is pretty level headed as seen in her calm advice to Bella and perhaps more logical and rational than Edward. Though Angela is perhaps more family oriented because of her siblings.

I think there’s a lot of potential there. Like, he’s assuming Bella’s thoughts are good and pure, but he actually knows Angela’s are. And I think that’s a big issue–that he can read her mind–and that would change the dynamic and not always in healthy ways, but other than that I think there’s a lot of good, interesting stuff. 

I think, also, the “no we can’t be together” thing might work better? Because in the books, Bella’s all in. She’s ready for this. She’s begging to become a vampire. It’s just Edward who hesitates.So I didn’t quite buy their love was so impossible, because it was just up to one of them to resolve it. I think with Edward/Angela BOTH of them would be hesitant.  Angela has more to lose, as you point out, a happy home life with her parents and brothers. That would be a lot harder for her to give up, I think, than Bella’s more bohemian existence with Renee and loving, but still a bit distant, relationship with Charlie. Not to mention that Angela’s father’s a pastor, so Edward’s religious/moral/soul-related arguments would probably resonate with her a lot more than they did with Bella, and she might share some of the same concerns. So instead of just Edward being like “no I cannot curse you with this!” we’d also have Angela wrestling with it along the same lines, in a deeper way than Bella did. I don’t think Angela is “born to be a vampire.” It would actually be a bigger sacrifice and a bigger gamble–she might think she IS risking her soul, while Bella doesn’t really believe in any religion so those issues don’t faze her. 

11 Blogs I'm Unfollowing Immediately

[Disclaimer: Angry post. Sorry.]

Once in a while, I do a “spring cleaning” of social media by unfollowing a ton of stuff. Not things I disagree with (we need disagreeing points of view) and not because I’m better than anyone (my insecurity would immediately banish the thought), but because it’s simply better for my mental state. It’s never a hasty decision. But where I’m going, I can’t take every voice with me. If you must, please discern wisely to unfollow me, too.

Here are eleven kinds of blogs or social media I’ll be leaving behind.

1) Random pornographic images. I know that art can be made out of the body (most work by Michelangelo and da Vinci are floppy beige sketches of the human form), but maybe we can draw the line at exploitative objectification. Not to be prude-ish, but I’m a recovering porn addict, and a relapse would have me missing work. And yes, most pornography supports violent cycles of human trafficking, and I can’t endorse that.

2) Hypocrisy. If you market yourself as an “inspirational blogger” but do nothing but preach online and get into passive-aggressive religious arguments all day, bye. There’s a whole world outside that’s starving.

3) Suicide culture. Look, I’ve wrestled with depression my whole life. No one wants depression. If you glorify that stuff with memes and moody movie scenes (from movies you’ve never seen), you’re both diminishing a very real illness and feeding into it, and I have to question if you’re really suffering depression or you’re just trying to go viral.

4) Shaming your parents. I know there are some really awful parents, but “Screw them because they didn’t get me the iPhone I wanted last Christmas” surpasses my tolerance for privilege. Unless you’re a parent, you have little clue how much they’ve sacrificed for your best (and yes, they’re people too, and they’re going to mess up sometimes). My family grew up with nothing; I know how hard they struggled.

5) Entitled fandoms. You’re strangling creativity. You’re why screenplay writers won’t take risks. They don’t owe you anything. Let them finish their story, and then complain.

6) Reactionary bitterness. If your blog is obviously acting out of unresolved anger all the time, bye. Go solve that stuff in real life, not with your thumbs. (And I recognize the irony of posting an angry post about angry posts: except it’s more out of grief than anything.)

7) Contrarian. If you’re constantly the guy who says “Well what about—” you’re actually an important voice, as we need critical thinkers, but at some point the edgy backlash of finding microscopic flaws that starts with “Am I the only one who doesn’t—” gets desperately exhausting.

8) Hyper-religious overbearing inspirational Instagram preachers. Seriously, bye. Why should anyone listen to you? What makes you a credible authority on anything? And why are you yelling “lukewarm” all the time? Please join any number of charities at the ground level.

9) Anti-religious atheist-fundamentalists. Seriously, blocked. I get the whole not-believing-in-God thing (I was an atheist for a very long time), but yelling at Christians in shrill snarky videos is just petty. You’re basically Westboro Baptist Church but replaced the “God hates you” signs with “I hate everyone who disagrees.”

10) Anyone who emotionally blackmails me to get money. I get at least one message a month that says something like, “You owe me, I made you who you are, don’t try to think you’re too big for me now.” Like this one: (who by the way is still writing a bunch of “inspirational” stuff).

11) Dichotomous “Us vs. Them” rhetoric. If you can’t possibly make room and dialogue with the “other side,” politically or religiously or philosophically, you’re probably not mature enough to have a blog. If you can’t admit when you’ve been wrong or you only offer non-apologies, you have zero credibility for a platform. Go live a little, experience foreign cultures, admit where you need to grow, talk with people you’d normally never agree with, read different opinions. Please come back wiser.


anonymous asked:

(1/2) Honestly, in the creation myth of Christianity, their bible says "And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so."

(2/2) In Christian mythology, nothing was said about humans killing animals until after the fall of man from grace. Before man was cast out of Eden, death didn’t exist.

This is an incredibly eloquent response to anyone who questions whether or not veganism contradicts the Bible, or Christianity. The points made are true! If anyone finds themselves being questioned by religious friends or family, remind them that God gave Adam and Eve a garden, not a slaughterhouse. This quote (which may vary slightly between Bible editions, but it appears to be Gensis 1:29), is a beautiful way of refuting religious arguments against veganism. 

Thank you so much for taking the time to send this in, anon! I know so many people struggle with refuting religious arguments, particularly “animals were put on this earth for us to eat,” when it’s clear that going by Christian scripture, it’s indeed the plants that were put here for us. Thank you for your time and insight!

-Admin Samantha

eloquentgifs  asked:

About the annulment thing: I agree it was ridiculous how it was brought up, but I'd swear something similar it's mentioned in the books. Maybe I'm remembering it wrong, but I think at some point Renly wanted to make Robert fell in love with Margaery, get rid of Cersei and marry her.

I’m pretty sure that annulment would have been contingent on if they could prove the twincest & illegitimacy of Cersei’s kids. Which is similar to what Jess mentioned re: Henry VIII setting aside Catherine. You need a like…legal/religious argument for invalidating a marriage besides “not feeling this.”

Elia had Aegon, you know?

I collaborated with @violabeatriceophelia with them writing this amazing fic down below and me doing the art up top with my royal au! I hope you enjoy! 

The lights of the city were mirrored across the dark sky like the reflecting pool in the palace gardens, like they were staring into an endless void of stars. It was a clear night, the sort that only happened in the middle of the desert, the sort that seemed magical with its undisturbed stillness.

Keep reading

Imagine being raised in a strict and religious, Hispanic household. You and Loki decide it’s finally time to meet your parents, so you arrange a dinner night with just your parents. Arriving at the front door with Loki, you’re greeted with welcome arms from the whole entire family, while Loki stands in the background being interrogated by your father, uncles, cousins, and older siblings.

During dinner time, you have a lovely conversation with everyone except your father who is constantly giving Loki death glares and snide remarks in which Loki returns the favor. Their rude comments and scowls soon turn into an argument, but before anything escalates, you curtly and angrily reprimand them in a combination of Spanish and English for acting like children.

Afterwards, your father and Loki apologize and reluctantly call it a truce with a handshake, although, their cold gazes and tense hand grips said otherwise.  Nonetheless, you forgive them and continue the evening by breaking pinatas, stealing candy, dancing, and enjoying each others company. 

Hey eveyone

Just please keep in mind that all religious/holy texts of different religions are very old and have been written by the standards of those times and if they’d probably be a lot different written nowadays. So PLEASE use some common sense before using quotes from religious texts as arguments in your anti-religion bullshit and let everyone believe in anything they want ❤ Just like radical Islam or Christianity or any other religion there’s also radical atheism and it’s just as bad. Keep that in mind, peace ya’ll!

Having a medical condition is not something to be ashamed of.

Having a medical condition that gives you a female body and male brain map at birth doesn’t make you less of a man.

Having a medical condition that gives you a male body and female brain map at birth doesn’t make you less of a woman.

Having sex dysphoria does not make you deluded. In fact, you’re probably painfully aware of the reality of your situation.

It’s a hard condition to have, and it sure doesn’t help when everyone is trying to politicize your existence in one way or another. But that doesn’t mean you should have to hide who you are.

If you’re out, it’s a sign of strength. A sign that you are going to be yourself and get the resources you need regardless of the politics, the religious arguments, the people who are going to misunderstand or even hate you for no reason other than your medical condition.

If you’re stealth, it’s a sign of strength. Because you have gone through the process to get where you are today, you’ve made the decision to be discreet, and it’s your right. You ripped off that band-aid a long time ago and you are still being the most authentic version of yourself.

And if you do have to hide who you are for your safety, it’s a sign of strength. Because you have to live with that, the pressures and pains and all of the lovely things that come from your dysphoria in secrecy, and guess what? You’re still alive. Keep going. It gets better.

anonymous asked:

Then wouldn't art similar to the art mentioned before, where an OC was drawn actively harming Trans individuals, be considered hatespeech? Can you elaborate why this would be allowed when it's another form of Hatespeech?

I talked about this rather extensively, but context matters!

When I was first told about it, 0 context was given. That could have easily been political commentary about a recent event (and I included an example of a political cartoon that involved stoning an LGBT individual to death under the guise of ‘religious freedom’, which was geared towards showing how monstrous the ‘religious freedom’ argument can be), and we won’t ban that.

However, several hours later, someone finally felt the need to tell me that the drawing was actually made to specifically target some users after inciting them by tagging some generally obnoxious beliefs in a popular game tag. With that context in mind, it’d be worth a suspension at the very least!

Intent and context matter a lot when you’re looking into these things! People have to remember that I’m way too busy these days to keep up with Tumblr, so don’t assume that I’ll instantly have the necessary context to know about the situation you’re bringing up. I’ll need all of the facts to make a decision!