It’s outrageous to me when I see people hate on someone because of their sexuality. I hate the intolerance. I hate the judgment. I hate it so much. Most of my favorite people in my life are gay. It’s something I’m super passionate about, because whenever I would see my friends get bullied, or my brother get hurt for his sexuality, I would become a raging lunatic. I would literally become a raging lunatic because I just can’t take it. When you see someone you love hurting, for such a superficial, bullshit reason, it’s like, how small and spiritually unenlightened and dumb as fuck can a person be? How much further can your head get up your ass that you’re actually judging someone as a person based on their sexuality before you even have a conversation with them?

Happy Pride Month!

Trichotrillomania is the Mysterious Feminine Dysfunction Nobody talks about because it’s not as sexy as eating disorders and specifically anorexia. This is disturbing on two levels. One, mental and physical illness that primarily affects women isn’t considered important unless it’s sexy. Two, anorexia is talked about as if it is sexy!

Even if we’re devastated
and our shoulders heavy-weighted,
even if we’re on the ground
and all hope seems to be drowned,
although the sun is already down
in this unenlightened town;
stars are illuminating our paths
and we’ll drive to the seafront
for moonlight baths,
knowing that the sun rising again
is what we’ll see
and so will we.
—  // there’s no time to surrender

“It is only your personal sense of self (fictitious, little ‘me’) that takes things too seriously and personally suffers.”  -Anon I mus (Spiritually Anonymous)

Enlightenment is a shift from personal identification with the I-entity to the I AM Consciousness. There is no ‘separate person’ that can be enlightened or unenlightened, it is not somewhere waiting to be found. It is your real nature, the ultimate source, always ever-present in and as everything.

sufjan stevens whenever he feels like emerging from the ethereal plane: Here is my gentle face. Use it well

us, the trapped and fleshy unenlightened: oh he has givén us a gift ! the man of our hearts has returned !

To paraphrase an observation - 

White “neopagans,” “Wiccans,” and “Neowiccans” are absolutely convinced that their shit doesn’t stink. 

Congratulations, you shrugged off a white protestant Christian environment or upbringing and waltzed into a tradition created by White Protestant Christians - the tradition of stealing from non-white persons. 

Y’all left Christianity and consider yourselves “Enlightened™ and Unproblematic™” but, really, you never left Christianity. You just went from Jesus/G@d-focused Christianity to a Christianity that focuses on a horned god or whatever. 

Your festivals, “sabbats,” are modern rip-offs from antisemitic claims that Jews and practitioners of Judaism such as myself worship Satan on Fridays and go about stealing crackers and cheap fermented grape juice and stabbing them. There are still bloggers on this site that claim I kidnap children, murder them, and use the blood to make matzo for Passover. 

Y’all benefit from blood libel against Jews. 

Y’all benefit from White Colonialist European Christianity and its love of calling other people savage, backwards, unenlightened. Y’all benefit from the thefts committed by colonizers - thefts of tradition, mysticism, religion, culture. 

So don’t fucking say you’re better than anyone else for moving from one colonizer religion to another. 

Fandom Discourse

I’m going to say one thing about all of this, and then I’m never speaking of it again unless directly asked. And maybe this will damage opinions of me or lose me followers, but at this point it doesn’t matter. How many followers I have—how many followers any of us has—does not matter in the slightest. It won’t gain you anything at the end of your life. What matters is how you treat other people.

This goes for every single person in this fandom and in others. The general viciousness with which Tumblrians tend to treat each other in general is frankly horrific. We have such a capacity for love and acceptance and we parade it around as much as we can. We claim to be better than the unenlightened people we work with or go to school with. But for whatever reason, be it because we are safe behind our screens and keyboards or otherwise, we have an incredible capacity for cruelness, carelessness, and thoughtlessness. More than most people I’ve ever come into contact with.

I have tragically seen this escalate this year in particular. And what’s even worse is that not only are the fandoms at each other’s throats, the authors are setting poor examples for their fans. You know this more so if you are on Twitter but there have already been too many episodes of social media fights between figures that hold a lot of influence over a lot of people. And these influential people aren’t setting the best examples.

But here’s the deal. It’s good to make jokes and have fun and make memes. That’s what fandom is for. It’s to find solidarity and enjoyment in a subject with like-minded people. What is not okay is making those jokes and making those memes at the expense of other people—especially when those people are part of demographics heavily struggling and being discriminated against. What is especially not okay is people seriously hurt by such posts calling the posts out and asking for a redaction or apology in the very least, and the fandom hardly gives them the time of day. We turn around and hurt even more to try and defend ourselves, and while that’s understandable, while that’s a natural human reaction, it’s also wrong.

Hate breeds hate. Anger breeds anger. Impulsive reactions hurt people, and the longer we ignore this fact, the more people get hurt. The more we hurt ourselves and allow ourselves to become embittered and cynical and jaded.

If you hurt someone, apologize. Own up to your actions. But most importantly, change your behavior. That’s where true regret and humility comes in. When your behavior is changed. Always think before you speak. Think about how someone is always watching, and what you say affects others whether you know it or not. You can never un hurt someone. Once it’s off your lips, you cannot take those words back no matter how hard you try.

If you see a post that very clearly hurts other people, my goodness, at the very least, do not reblog it. Do not give it more attention than it has already received. And if you did—just apologize! Apologize, delete it, and don’t reblog anything like that again.

Be respectful. Honestly, that’s what it comes down to. Treat each other like the beautiful human beings each of you are. And we shouldn’t have any problems.

Viva la Revolution

oops i saw this post and wrote a thing

not really written as a ship so ig platonic logince?

Roman and Logan were ten minutes into a chess game and Logan was about ready to explode.

No, he wasn’t losing, he was in fact winning by quite a large margin - if you played the game correctly. If you were playing the game like Roman, however, it seemed there was no feasible way for Logan to get through the game.

Keep reading

Beyond No-Self

By His Holiness the Dalai Lama

The teaching on the twelve links of dependent origination is common to all Buddhist traditions; however, the interpretation of the twelve links, their processes, and particularly the explanation of the first link, ignorance, is different for the Madhyamaka school than it is for the other philosophical schools.

The other schools define fundamental ignorance as grasping at the self-existence of the person. Grasping at the self-existence of a person means believing there is a self that is somehow distinct from our body and mind — our aggregates. Such a self is thought to act like a master over the physical and mental components of a person.

The seventh-century Indian Buddhist philosopher Dharmakirti gives an example of this belief in his Exposition of Valid Cognition (Pramanavarttika): Say an old person whose body is deteriorating and is full of aches is given the opportunity to exchange his body for a much healthier body. From the depths of his mind would emerge a ready willingness to take part in such an exchange. This suggests that deep down, we believe in a self that is distinct from our body, yet somehow master over it.

Similarly, if a person with a poor memory or some other mental deficiency were given an opportunity to exchange his or her mind for a fresh one with superior cognitive powers, again from the depth of the heart would arise a real willingness to enter into the transaction. This suggests that not only in relation to our body but also in relation to our mental faculties, we believe in a self who would benefit from such an exchange, a self that it is somehow the ruler or master of the body and mind.

The other schools define grasping at self-existence as the belief in this kind of discrete self — a self-sufficient and substantially real master that is in charge of the servant body-and-mind. For them, the negation of that kind of self is the full meaning of selflessness, or no-self. When we search for such a self by investigating whether it is separate from the psychophysical aggregates or identical to them, we discover that no such self exists. The other schools’ interpretation of the twelve links of dependent origination therefore defines fundamental ignorance as grasping at such a self-sufficient and substantially real self.

Madhyamikas would agree that gaining insight into such a selflessness does open the way to reversing the cycle. However, as Nagarjuna argues, while this is a form of grasping at selfhood, it does not get at the subtlest meaning of selflessness.

With insight into this grosser type of selflessness, you can reverse some habits related to the grosser afflictions. But wherever there is grasping at an intrinsic existence of the aggregates — the body and mind — there will always be a danger of grasping at a self or “I” based on those aggregates. As Nagarjuna writes in his Precious Garland (Ratnavali):

As long as there is grasping at the aggregates,
there is grasping at self;
when there is grasping at self there is karma,
and from it comes birth.

Nagarjuna argues that just as grasping at the intrinsic existence of the person or self is fundamental ignorance, grasping at the intrinsic existence of the aggregates is also grasping at self-existence. Madhyamikas therefore distinguish two kinds of emptiness — the lack of any self that is separate from the aggregates, which they call the emptiness of self, and the lack of intrinsic existence of the aggregates themselves — and by extension all phenomena — which they call the emptiness of phenomena. Realising the first kind of emptiness, Nagarjuna and his followers argue, may temporarily suppress manifest afflictions, but it can never eradicate the subtle grasping at the true existence of things. To understand the meaning of the first link, fundamental ignorance, in its subtlest sense, we must identify and understand it as grasping at the intrinsic existence of all phenomena — including the aggregates, sense spheres, and all external objects — and not merely our sense of “I.”


The search for the nature of the self, the “I” that naturally does not desire suffering and naturally wishes to attain happiness, may have begun, in India, around three thousand years ago, if not earlier. Throughout human history people have empirically observed that certain types of strong, powerful emotions — such as hatred and extreme attachment — create problems. Hatred, in fact, arises out of attachment — attachment, for example, to family members, community, or self. Extreme attachment creates anger or hatred when these things are threatened. Anger then leads to all kinds of conflict and battles. Some human beings have stepped back, observed, and inquired into the role of these emotions, their function, their value, and their effects.

We can discuss powerful emotions such as attachment or anger in and of themselves, but these cannot actually be comprehended in isolation from their being experienced by an individual. There is no conceiving an emotion except as an experience of some being. In fact, we cannot even separate the objects of attachment, anger, or hatred from the individual who conceives of them as such because the characterisation does not reside in the object. One person’s friend is another person’s enemy. So when we speak of these emotions, and particularly their objects, we cannot make objective determinations independent of relationships.

Just as we can speak of someone being a mother, a daughter, or a spouse only in relation to another person, likewise the objects of attachment or anger are only desirable or hateful in relation to the perceiver who is experiencing attachment or anger. All of these — mother and daughter, enemy and friend — are relative terms. The point is that emotions need a frame of reference, an “I” or self that experiences them, before we can understand the dynamics of these emotions.

A reflective person will then ask, What exactly is the nature of the individual, the self? And once raised, this question leads to another: Where is this self? Where could it exist?

We take for granted terms like east, west, north, and south, but if we examine carefully, we see these again are relative terms that have meaning only in relation to something else. Often, that point of reference turns out to be wherever you are. One could argue, in fact, that in the Buddhist worldview, the center of cyclic existence is basically where you are. Thus, in a certain sense, you are the center of the universe!

Not only that, but for each person, we ourselves are the most precious thing, and we are constantly engaged in ensuring the well-being of this most precious thing. In one sense, our business on earth is to take care of that precious inner core. In any case, this is how we tend to relate to the world and others. We create a universe with ourselves in the center, and from this point of reference, we relate to the rest of the world. With this understanding, it becomes more crucial to ask what that self is. What exactly is it?

Buddhists speak of samsara and nirvana — cyclic existence and its transcendence. The former, as we have seen, can be defined as ignorance of the ultimate nature of reality and the latter as insight into the ultimate nature of reality, or knowledge of it. So long as we remain ignorant of the ultimate nature of reality, we are in samsara. Once we gain insight into the ultimate nature of reality, we move toward nirvana, or the transcendence of unenlightened existence. They are differentiated on the basis of knowledge. But here again, we cannot speak of knowledge without speaking of an individual who has or does not have knowledge. We come back again to the question of the self. What exactly is its nature?

This type of inquiry predates the Buddha. Such questioning was already prevalent in India before the Buddha arrived. Until he taught, the dominant belief was that since everyone has an innate sense of selfhood, a natural instinctive notion of “I am,” there must be some enduring thing that is the real self. Since the physical and mental faculties that constitute our existence are transient — they change, age, and then one day cease — they cannot be the true self. Were they the real self, then our intuition of an enduring self that is somehow independent but also a master of our body and mind would have to be false. Thus, before the Buddha, the concept of the self as independent and separate from the physical and the mental faculties, was commonly accepted.

Innate grasping of selfhood is reinforced by this kind of philosophical reflection. These Indian philosophers maintained that the self did not undergo a process of change. We say, “when I was young, I was like this,” and “when I am older, I will do this,” and these philosophers asserted that these statements presume the presence of an unchanging entity that constitutes our identity throughout the different stages of our life.

These thinkers also maintained that since highly advanced meditators could recall their past lives, this supported their position that the self takes rebirth, moving from one life to the next. They maintained that this true self was unchanging and eternal and, somehow, independent of the physical and the mental aggregates. That was largely the consensus before the Buddha.

The Buddha argued against this position. Not only is our intuition of an inborn self a delusion, he said, the philosophical tenets that strengthen and reinforce such a belief are a source of all kinds of false views. The Buddhist sutras therefore refer to the belief in selfhood itself as the mind of the deceiver Mara — the embodiment of delusion — and as the source of all problems. The Buddha rejected the idea of a self that is somehow independent of the body and mind.

Does that mean that the person does not, in any sense whatsoever, exist at all? Buddha responded that the person does indeed exist, but only in relation to the physical and mental aggregates and in dependence on them. Thus the existence of the individual is accepted only as a dependent entity and not as an independent, absolute reality.

Buddhist philosophical schools therefore all agree that an independent self, separate from the body and mind, cannot be found. However, when we say “I do this” or “I do that,” what exactly is the true referent of the person? What exactly is the person then? Diverse opinions arose among the Buddhist schools regarding the exact identification of the nature of this dependent person. Given their shared acceptance of existence across lifetimes, all Buddhist philosophical schools rule out the continuum of the body as constituting the continuity of the person. Therefore, the differences of opinion surround the way that the continuum of consciousness could be the basis for locating the person or the individual.

In a passage in his Precious Garland, Nagarjuna dissects the concept of a person and its identity by explaining that a person is not the earth element, water element, fire element, wind element, space, or consciousness. And apart from these, he asks, what else could a person be? To this he responds that a person exists as the convergence of these six constituents. The term “convergence” is the crucial word, as it suggests the interaction of the constituents in mutual interdependence.

How do we understand the concept of dependence? It is helpful to reflect on a statement by Chandrakirti in his commentary on Nagarjuna’s Fundamental Stanzas on the Middle Way, where the following explicit explanation of how to understand a buddha in terms of dependent origination is found. He writes, “What is it then? We posit the tathagata in dependence upon the aggregates, for it cannot be asserted to be either identical with or separate from the aggregates.” His point is that if we search for the essence of something believing we can pinpoint some real thing — something objectively real from its own side that exists as a valid referent of the term or concept — then we will fail to find anything at all.


In our day-to-day interactions, we often speak of time. We all take for granted the reality of time. Were we to search for what exactly time is, we could do so in two ways. One is to search with the belief that we should be able to find something objectively real that we can define as time. But we immediately run into a problem. We find that time can only be understood on the basis of something else, in relation to a particular phenomenon or event. The other way to search is in a relative framework, not presuming an objectively real entity.

Take, for example, the present moment. If we search for the present moment believing that we should be able to find a unique entity in the temporal process, an objective “present,” we won’t find anything. As we dissect the temporal process, we instead discover that events are either past or yet to occur; we find only the past and future. Nothing is truly present because the very process of searching for it is itself a temporal process, which means that it is necessarily always at a remove from now.

If, on the other hand, we search for the present within the relative framework of everyday convention, we can maintain the concept of the present. We can say “this present year,” for example, within the broader context of many years. Within the framework of twelve months, we can speak of “the present month.” Similarly, within that month, we can speak of “the present week,” and so on, and in this relative context we can maintain coherently the notion of a present moment. But if we search for a real present that is present intrinsically, we cannot find it.

In just the same way, we can ascertain the existence of a person within the conventional, relative framework without needing to search for some kind of objective, intrinsically real person that is the self. We can maintain our commonsense notion of the person or individual in relation to the physical and the mental faculties that comprise our particular existence.

Because of this, in Nagarjuna’s text we find references to things and events or phenomena existing only as labels, or within the framework of language and designation. Of the two possible modes of existence — objectively real existence and nominal existence — objectively real existence is untenable, as we have seen. Hence we can only speak of a self conventionally or nominally — in the framework of language and consensual reality. In brief, all phenomena exist merely in dependence upon their name, through the power of worldly convention. Since they do not exist objectively, phenomena are referred to in the texts as “mere terms,” “mere conceptual constructs,” and “mere conventions.”


At the beginning of his eighteenth chapter, Nagarjuna writes:

If self were the aggregates,
it would have arising and disintegration;
if it were different from the aggregates,
it would not have the characteristics of the aggregates.

If we are searching for an essential self that is objectively and intrinsically real, we must determine whether such a self is identical to the aggregates or is something separate from them. If the self were identical to the aggregates, then, like the aggregates, the self would be subject to arising and disintegrating. If the body undergoes surgery or injury, for example, the self would also be cut or harmed. If, on the other hand, the self were totally independent of the aggregates, we could not explain any changes in the self based on changes in the aggregates, such as when an individual is first young and then old, first sick and then healthy.

Nagarjuna also is saying that if the self and the aggregates were entirely distinct, then we could not account for the arising of grasping at the notion of self on the basis of the aggregates. For instance, if our body were threatened, we would not experience strong grasping at self as a result. The body by nature is an impermanent phenomenon, always changing, while our notion of the self is that it is somehow changeless, and we would never confuse the two if they were indeed separate.

Thus, neither outside the aggregates nor within the aggregates can we find any tangible or real thing at all that we can call the self. Nagarjuna then writes:

If the self itself does not exist, how can there be “mine”?

“Mine” is a characteristic of the self, for the thought “I am” immediately gives rise to the thought “mine.” The grasping at “mine” is a form of grasping at selfhood because “mine” grasps at objects related to the self. It is a variation on the egoistic view, which sees everything in relation to an intrinsically existent “I.” In fact, if we examine the way we perceive the world around us, we cannot speak of good and bad, or samsara and nirvana, without thinking from the perspective of an “I.” We cannot speak of anything at all. Once the self becomes untenable, then our whole understanding of a world based on distinguishing self from others, “mine” from not mine, falls apart. Therefore, Nagarjuna writes:

Since self and mine are pacified,
one does not grasp at “I” and “mine.”

Because the self and the mine cease, the grasping at them also does not arise. This resonates with a passage in Aryadeva’s Four Hundred Stanzas on the Middle Way in which he says that when you no longer see a self in relation to an object, then the root of cyclic existence will come to an end.

One who does not grasp at “I” and “mine,”
that one too does not exist,
for the one who does not grasp
at “I” and “mine” does not perceive him.

In other words, the yogi who has brought an end to grasping at “I” and “mine” is not intrinsically real. If you believe in the intrinsic reality of such a yogi, then you also grasp at selfhood. What appears to the mind of the person who has ascertained the absence of self and its properties is only the absence of all conceptual elaborations. Just as grasping at me and mine must cease, so must grasping at a yogi who has ended such grasping. Both are devoid of intrinsic existence.

The point is that our understanding of emptiness should not remain partial, such that we negate the intrinsic existence of some things but not of others. We need to develop a profound understanding of emptiness so that our perception of the lack of intrinsic existence encompasses the entire spectrum of reality and becomes totally free of any conceptual elaboration whatsoever. The understanding is one of mere absence, a simple negation of intrinsic existence.


Nagarjuna continues,

When thoughts of “I” and “mine” are extinguished
with respect to the inner and the outer,
the process of appropriation ceases;
this having ceased, birth ceases.

This refers to the twelve links of dependent origination. “Inner” and “outer” here can be understood as the conception of self as either among the aggregates or apart from them. When grasping at self and “mine” ceases, then, because no more karmic potentials related to external or internal phenomena are activated, the ninth link in the twelve links of dependent origination — grasping, or appropriation — will not occur. We will no longer grasp at objects of enjoyment and turn away from things we deem unattractive. Thus, although we may continue to possess karmic potentials, they are no longer activated by craving and grasping, and when this happens, birth in cyclic existence, the eleventh link, can no longer occur. This is the sense in which birth will come to an end.

Therefore, as we deepen our understanding of emptiness, the potency of our karma to propel rebirth in cyclic existence is undermined. When we realise emptiness directly, as it is stated in Exposition of Valid Cognition, “For he who sees the truth, no projecting exists.” In other words, once we gain a direct realisation of emptiness, we no longer accumulate karma to propel rebirth in cyclic existence. As we gradually deepen our direct realisation, so that it permeates our entire experience and destroys the afflictions, we eventually eliminate the root of grasping at intrinsic existence altogether and the continuity of rebirth in cyclic existence is cut. This is true freedom, or liberation, where we no longer create new karma through ignorance, where no conditions exist to activate past karma, and where the afflictions have been destroyed at their root.


For those of you who are unenlightened…. The 1998 video game “Godzilla Generations" was based around destroying cities as giant monsters. There were a number of playable characters, including Godzilla, Minilla, ZIlla, Mechagodzilla … …

and Giant Dr. Serizawa. — Who attacks the city with the Oxygen Destroyer and a laser gun hidden behind his eye patch. Because Japan.

Quotes from INFJ Characters


You offer me a normal life… Why do you think I want that anymore? I know what I am, do you?
Vanessa Ives from Penny Dreadful

I have to think of everyone. I know you don’t want to hear this, but you have to sacrifice the few to save the many. Like I said, good can come out of even the darkest acts.
Thelonius Jaha, The 100

As much as she wanted to be, she wasn’t in love. As I was listening to her, I realized what she was saying. She had let go of the possibility of being in love, of finding love, and I could see myself in her and I didn’t like who I was. All of these memories and feelings I’m experiencing, they are from a better version of me, and I’ve decided to let things run their course.
Olivia Dunham from Fringe

The world’s in trouble … I have to go help.
Jinora from Legend of Korra

When you base your expectations only on what you see, you blind yourself to the possibilities of a new reality.
Zaheer from Legend of Korra

I’m going to let you in on a little secret: every day, once a day, give yourself a present. Don’t plan it; don’t wait for it; just let it happen. It could be a new shirt in a men’s store, a catnap in your office chair, or two cups of good, hot, black, coffee.
Dale Cooper from Twin Peaks

In the gentle fall of rain from Heaven I hear my God. But in thunder I still hear Thor.
Athelstan from Vikings

It’s not the final judgement of “good” and “evil” that’s important. What matters is that you come to that decision yourself. That you agonize over it and eventually accept it.
Akane Tsunemori from Psycho-Pass

I’m not giving up on you. You don’t understand this yet, but people need you. So let’s get back to work.
Tadashi from Big Hero 6

Do. Or do not. There is no try.
Yoda from Star Wars

Sometimes you’ve got to do what you think is right and damn the consequences.
Morgana from BBC’s Merlin

They have not forgotten the Mysteries, they have found them too difficult. They want a God who will care for them, who will not demand that they struggle for enlightenment, but who will accept them just as they are, with all their sins, and take away their sins with repentance. It is not so, it will never be so, but perhaps it is the only way the unenlightened can bear to think of their Gods.
Morgaine from The Mists of Avalon by Marion Zimmer Bradley

I fear not knowing who I am.
Will Graham from Hannibal

Good character is more to be praised than outstanding talent. Most talents are, to some extent, a gift. Good character, by contrast, is not given to us. We have to build it piece by piece-by thought, choice, courage and determination.
John Luther, Luther

“you wouldn’t hate radical feminism if you just understood it!!!”

actually your ideology isnt some flawless perfect angelic thing

some people have different morals, one of mine being “let people do what makes them happy and meets their needs”

most radical feminist ideology in my field of experience advocates against many things that make people happy or meet their needs (transitioning, bdsm, sex work, femininity, sometimes bisexuality, asexuality or polyamory depending on the person- all being one or the other) and believes that there is one correct way to exist as a person (cis and vanilla, preferably GNC and being gay is a plus). Terfs often believe that people who don’t agree with them on things, for example a sex worker who prefers their job over other choices or a masochist or a traditionally feminine woman, are simply “brainwashed” or somehow otherwise Not Smart Enough to know what they really want and they don’t ACTUALLY think that deep down. They believe trans people can be cured of being trans by simply choosing “not to be” (going back in the closet), quite similar to the conversion therapy happening to many trans kids to make them cis. Many of them falsely claim to be dysphoric or detransitioned, which has the side effect of nobody knowing who actually IS either of those things (when you have 15yos claiming to be detrans and people claiming disliking catcalling is dysphoria, who csn tell?), a great example of the lies used to push their ideology.

The other thing that’s strongly against my moral code is demonisation of minorities. Terfs generally resist the idea that maybe, just maybe, trans women are humans like them, and the presence of a penis does not make someone a rape machine. They are unable to comprehend that men are usually commiting the assaults in women’s bathrooms, not trans women, although they may pretend. They can’t comprehend the idea that maybe, just maybe, some people are attracted to aspects of a person othr than genitals (to oversimplify) and that for many, genitals are not the basis of attraction, and because of this, TERFs are quick to tell gay men and lesbians they’re straight or bisexual and try to have them kicked out of safe spaces, which is, you guessed it, homophobic. Not only that, but Muslims are a common target, with a point towards sexist Muslim countries as if that makes it okay to discriminate against Muslims on the basis of being Muslim alone (forgetting that almost all religions have crap teachings that nobody follows. Christianity has just as horrible shit in the Bible, but I’ve only seen Muslims as targets, correct me if I’m wrong). Did I mention the racism that is invalidating the nonbinary genders of other cultures? No? Do I need to go on?

So yeah, contrary to popular belief, most people are against the popular radical feminist movements because of their beliefs being absolutely shit, not because we’re all stupid and unenlightened by your mighty Terf Gods. (That’s cult rhetoric, thinking you’re the only Enlightened OnesTM. Maybe that’s why terfs are so insecure and can’t go 10 seconds without calling trans people a cult.)

The Four Reminders

Today I have been contemplating the Four Reminders of the Buddhist path. These are useful contemplations for anyone, especially those endeavoring on a spiritual path. 

The Four Reminders are intended to generate a kind of attitude. This attitude is the basis for sincere and authentic spiritual practice. 

The Four Reminders:

  1. Contemplate the preciousness of human life and the good fortune entailed therein. Every other species of living being on this planet is caught in the animal cycles of existence: consuming and reproducing. Only humans have been afforded the opportunity to be more than our animal needs. We are lucky to have such access to profound spiritual teachings. We are privileged and should be grateful. 
  2. Recognize the certainty and suddenness of death. This body, this mind, this story, and this individuality will 100% absolutely end. Nothing it can do, experience, or attain will last. Us and everything we know are impermanent. We cannot take for granted that anything will last, especially ourselves. 
  3. Understand that we are always surrounded by our momentum. Call it karma, call it intention, call it whatever you want. Our decisions, beliefs, and perspectives create varying forms of momentum in our lives and the lives of others. Some of it is positive, some of it is negative, all of it binds us to levels of cause and effect. When death comes for us, all we have left is the momentum we have created in this life. 
  4. Acknowledge the intensity and inevitability of suffering for yourself and all sentient beings. So long as we are unawakened, unenlightened, and living in illusion, suffering will be a part of our experience of existence. So long as we are attached to our small pleasures we call “happiness,” we will also have to accept the subsequent experiences of suffering as well. 

With these contemplations in mind, there comes a natural response from within us. We wish to utilize our time and energies while we are still alive to do our best in creating beneficial momentum for all while liberating ourselves from the tangle of suffering called illusion. 

This is a good daily contemplation. It is an excellent way to start your day and also end it. It keeps everything that goes on throughout the day in perspective while opening your heart-mind to a much larger reality. 

And, most importantly, it will motivate you to take up spiritual practices with enthusiasm. 


anonymous asked:

What's really messed up about all of this is that the person who opened the way for these rapist apologists to attack victims of rape has yet to apologize or self-criticize their wrong callous idealist opinions on how justice should work -- worse they continue to think they're right and victims of rape continue to be harassed and hounded by sobercommunist and his pals.

I mean I get the position that capital punishment is always bad and take no issue with someone holding that position necessarily so long as it is expressed in a careful way that doesn’t make women who want rapists dead out to be backwards or unenlightened or whatever. I think the posts in question failed to not make this position out to be the morally good response to being sexually assaulted that any good decent leftist ought to have and involved some finger wagging and name calling. That’s bad, the talking down to women who have the wrong feelings when it isn’t immediately relevant anyway. But that I could like, whatever, just see as an arrogant and condescending but not violent thing, just being rude to other women. Everybody has been arrogant about something before. That’s not necessarily a huge deal imo.

What is a huge deal is the expression of these ideas by a man with a long history of making deeply and openly violent comments to women, including, ironically enough, saying he hopes they get murdered even though saying the same about literal rapists is apparently so bad. That’s what’s sketchy here- a man with a history of violent misogyny and who has a habit of calling women slurs on the internet not only making any comment about this, but specifically using violently misogynist language to defend his right to do so, and THEN saying “Well do you want my friends to die just because they are racist???” This is in addition to his continued use of racist shit like calling Jewish women Nazi apologists for disagreeing with him, his continued use of false rape allegations by white women as anything that should be his white male concern or something anyone was ever talking about as opposed to just literal actual factual rapists, his weird obsession with ace bloggers who are often children and his use of violently misogynist and sometimes sexually violent language like “get fucked” with them and guess whether he picks girls to harass or boys- he picks girls because that’s who these kids are for the most part and also he hates women! The issue with him is that this combined with his way of expressing this to women is suspicious, and that he’s discusses not killing rapists as a matter of not killing “people in his life” that matter to him. Like if you just think capital punishment is bad, whatever, you express it condescendingly whatever even though it’s a bit of an asshole move, you express it condescendingly specifically pertaining to rapists and use violently misogynist language to do so? Hard line to be drawn with that as disgusting behavior. To be clear I think he has a weird psychosexual straight up obsession with being violent to women on the internet and wouldn’t doubt that this carries into his behavior offline- I’m not gonna guess at how that shows up but misogyny this intense has to, that much I know.

Ironically enough if he is so into this idea of reeducation it really would behoove him to start with himself- that wasn’t a joke on my part. Women have attempted to get him to st least not use misogynist slurs to harangue women he dislikes, in small cases from dumb ace micropolitics all the way up to women with actually nasty politics, because calling a woman a cunt when you could stick to criticizing her politics makes it clear which one of those two things is your priority. This is not hard to figure out and he has even bragged about not using racial slurs when he is upset with a black person. He refuses to do the same about watching his language because he hates and does not respect women, period. He is himself a case of a man with whom reeducation has literally already been attempted and failed.

The Orville Surprised Me

I just finished watching episode 3 of the Orville. This show is a true treasure. Don’t let the fact Family Guy is a misogynistic unfunny cartoon so far beyond its expiration date that anytime I accidentally leave my tv on and it shows after some USA re-airing of Star Wars I’ve watched for the umpteenth time; I get the same feeling of disgust as would if a dog fed nothing but sauerkraut and rancid meat took a huge dump on my living room floor. And that the curator of that show is the same who created and stars in Orville is responsible for that steaming pile of dog shit called Family Guy.

After watching the first two episodes on-demand I thought this could be a great series and gave me that feeling of nostalgia I get when watching Star Trek TOS. I mean, the strongest person on the ship is a small woman who has already saved the captain and commander (the commander is also a badass woman and wicked smart as is the ship’s doctor). The commander and the captain are well written and they dislike eachother but where one is weak the other is strong and they build the other up even with their history.

But episode 3 hit me like a brick and I knew this show was going to be special.


One of the ship’s officers is from a world where everyone is male. He and his husband (yes, same sex unions that no one on the ship even blinks at) have a baby who turns out to be a girl. Their culture demands the baby have a surgical procedure to make her male. The officer, after seeing Rudolph and fighting the strongest person on the crew, sees that being a woman is not an affliction as his culture believes but his mate wants the reassignment surgery. It goes to tribunal and it is a fight between culture beliefs and the ethics of people who are not off the same culture. The ship has an amazing and inspiring witness that makes the viewer feel like the baby girl may get the chance to decide her own fate when she is old enough to understand, but there is still an overbearing feeling of dread. This is the point in the story that if it were a real Star Trek show the perceived good guys (aka the crew of the Orville) would show the perceived unenlightened race of aliens the error of their ways. But this is where the disconnect between the Orville an Star Trek is apparent as this “comedy sci-fi” show comes out of left field and takes a turn that Star Trek would not take. It takes the hard route and leaves the viewer gutted and sad. I was more emotional after this episode than I could ever believe I would be watching a show created by Seth McFarland.


The Orville is an extremely well done Star Trek inspired television show that is well worth the viewer’s time; whatever their preconceived notions of Seth McFarland are. Watch The Orville!

I dissuade Party members from putting down people who do not understand. Even people who are unenlightened and seemingly bourgeois should be answered in a polite way. Things should be explained to them as fully as possible. I was turned off by a person who did not want to talk to me because I was not important enough. Maurice just wanted to preach to the converted, who already agreed with him. I try to be cordial, because that way you win people over. You cannot win them over by drawing the line of demarcation, saying you are on this side and I am on the other; that shows a lack of consciousness. After the Black Panther Party was formed, I nearly fell into this error. I could not understand why people were blind to what I saw so clearly. Then I realized that their understanding had to be developed.