nah i mean i agree with this in principle - like everyone else, i have had many many great friendships that i haven't maintained but still feel were really valuable to me and would never consider "taking back".
but weirdly enough the whole time i dated i never had the desire to date more than one person and, while i didn't generally see romantic relationships as a point on an inevitable track - i am only getting married for the first time at 40 - i also never really went into them expecting their demise.
my folks have been married 50 years this summer. i guess maybe my view of their marriage has influenced my sense of romantic relationships. also this kind of stubborn irish tradition i guess. my brothers are oriented the same way i am.
I wonder if there's any kind of genetic predisposition towards mono or poly sexuality, or if it is primarily or entirely a construct of culture.
I suspect that many of the traditionally sex-positive writers and researchers have avoided this topic previously because it seemed like it would end up, inevitably, as a way to attack the GLBT community in a roundabout fashion.
i think a lot of the heterosexual support for gay marriage comes from the moral primacy of monogamy
Wrong as I feel that primacy may be for some people, I can't disagree here.
nah i mean i agree with this in principle - like everyone else, i have had many many great friendships that i haven't maintained but still feel were really valuable to me and would never consider "taking back".
but weirdly enough the whole time i dated i never had the desire to date more than one person and, while i didn't generally see romantic relationships as a point on an inevitable track - i am only getting married for the first time at 40 - i also never really went into them expecting their demise.
my folks have been married 50 years this summer. i guess maybe my view of their marriage has influenced my sense of romantic relationships. also this kind of stubborn irish tradition i guess. my brothers are oriented the same way i am.
I wonder if there's any kind of genetic predisposition towards mono or poly sexuality, or if it is primarily or entirely a construct of culture.
I suspect that many of the traditionally sex-positive writers and researchers have avoided this topic previously because it seemed like it would end up, inevitably, as a way to attack the GLBT community in a roundabout fashion.
There are certainly genetic (and epigenetic lol) predispositions to certain personality traits, which themselves might be predispositions to one relationship style or another.
Traits like extroversion, or variety-seeking.
Yeah, absolutely
I was more wondering if its more explicitly comparable to sexuality
in that someone can really be born poly- or mono-sexual, and there's a theoretical spectrum, etc.
and, like I said, I think that people have avoided that question because its a gigantic fucking minefield and even mentioning it I feel the need to create a long list of disclaimers that I'm not saying X, Y, or Z.
I doubt that it's remotely as discrete as that.
Hell, I think sexual orientation isn't as discrete as we make it out to be.
I suspect that at best we'll be able to identify certain biological markers that have weak but detectable correlations on certain personality traits (and preferences, and behaviors) which themselves have weak but detectable correlations with certain types of romantic arrangement.
But I do think that people are often pushed into the closest matching box by various circumstances (in many different ways in life, not just with sexuality). If you're mostly satisfied with monogamy but you have a little tickle in the back of your brain about other people, that might not be enough to push you to break your vows. Or you may go through a slutty phase after a divorce because you're overcompensating for lack of sexy fun times during your marriage.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
So John Campbell, the guy who does Pictures for Sad Children, burned 127 copies of his latest book Sad Pictures for Children, filmed it, and included the video in an update on the page of the kickstarter he'd used to fund the book, along with a very long message about why.
nah i mean i agree with this in principle - like everyone else, i have had many many great friendships that i haven't maintained but still feel were really valuable to me and would never consider "taking back".
but weirdly enough the whole time i dated i never had the desire to date more than one person and, while i didn't generally see romantic relationships as a point on an inevitable track - i am only getting married for the first time at 40 - i also never really went into them expecting their demise.
my folks have been married 50 years this summer. i guess maybe my view of their marriage has influenced my sense of romantic relationships. also this kind of stubborn irish tradition i guess. my brothers are oriented the same way i am.
I wonder if there's any kind of genetic predisposition towards mono or poly sexuality, or if it is primarily or entirely a construct of culture.
I suspect that many of the traditionally sex-positive writers and researchers have avoided this topic previously because it seemed like it would end up, inevitably, as a way to attack the GLBT community in a roundabout fashion.
i think a lot of the heterosexual support for gay marriage comes from the moral primacy of monogamy
Which is weird, because part of the support is also a recognition of "well, everyone just does their own thing, hooray America!"
So you have contradictory messages in that society is now allowing homosexuals to get "real" married, as in a monogamous 1+1 traditional household marriage, while a big part of the message and validation behind allow gay marriage is letting individuals define their own sexual and romantic identities.
Ultimately, I think support for gay marriage, long-term, lends itself towards a society more willing to consider and eventually support non-traditional relationships.
So John Campbell, the guy who does Pictures for Sad Children, burned 127 copies of his latest book Sad Pictures for Children, filmed it, and included the video in an update on the page of the kickstarter he'd used to fund the book, along with a very long message about why.
that rant is really fucked up because he found a picture of the only black woman he knows who does webcomics and plastered it on his blog and acted like he was acting on her behalf
when she is friends with joel watson and did not give him her permission
he just put it up to give his rant some more legitimacy or something? thats fucked
I didn't see that. But I'm having a weird thing where some of the images on his tumblr aren't loading. Like, there's a big whitespace field for me at the top of that rant and there has been since yesterday. I thought it was just Campbell being Campbell.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
0
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
So John Campbell, the guy who does Pictures for Sad Children, burned 127 copies of his latest book Sad Pictures for Children, filmed it, and included the video in an update on the page of the kickstarter he'd used to fund the book, along with a very long message about why.
that rant is really fucked up because he found a picture of the only black woman he knows who does webcomics and plastered it on his blog and acted like he was acting on her behalf
when she is friends with joel watson and did not give him her permission
he just put it up to give his rant some more legitimacy or something? thats fucked
i feel like there are not enough eyes in the world to roll to the degree that page deserves
+2
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Unfortunately for conservatives, there's not really a thing such as "traditional marriage" without serious caveat.
These magic negrospeople supposedly have no word for murder, rape, war, father or jealousy. It helps that they are preliterate so these claims can't be disproven easily.
Well sure, pretending that a preliterate society represents some kind of Noble Savage ideal because it arguably lacks a particular word is approximately as senseless as arguing that Eskimos think differently because they have more words for describing snow.
I made a game! Hotline Maui. Requires mouse and keyboard.
Hell, I think sexual orientation isn't as discrete as we make it out to be.
Agreed, I guess a better way to phrase it is "I wonder if biological preferences for mono or poly relationships end up being as strong or stronger than cultural restrictions on the same, and what the breaking point and balance of each ends up being?"
Like I said, its a difficult topic to discuss because, well, everything.
So John Campbell, the guy who does Pictures for Sad Children, burned 127 copies of his latest book Sad Pictures for Children, filmed it, and included the video in an update on the page of the kickstarter he'd used to fund the book, along with a very long message about why.
holy shit that guy really went off his fucking meds
set up a fight club in his basement
maybe more of a fight tumblr i guess
stole a bunch of money
said fuck it, pissed it away, told the people he owed that he was abolishing the wage system
he's not a part of your system, maaaaan
rent is theft!
0
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
It would seem to follow that any culture with no word for war, murder, or rape would be ill-prepared to come into contact with any culture that did.
+3
Element BrianPeanut Butter ShillRegistered Userregular
ahhh yeah
fucked up the google doc format while the entire deapartment was working on it, so everyone can see my little pink colored box frantically hop around the spreadsheet trying to fix things
So John Campbell, the guy who does Pictures for Sad Children, burned 127 copies of his latest book Sad Pictures for Children, filmed it, and included the video in an update on the page of the kickstarter he'd used to fund the book, along with a very long message about why.
So John Campbell, the guy who does Pictures for Sad Children, burned 127 copies of his latest book Sad Pictures for Children, filmed it, and included the video in an update on the page of the kickstarter he'd used to fund the book, along with a very long message about why.
that rant is really fucked up because he found a picture of the only black woman he knows who does webcomics and plastered it on his blog and acted like he was acting on her behalf
when she is friends with joel watson and did not give him her permission
he just put it up to give his rant some more legitimacy or something? thats fucked
i feel like there are not enough eyes in the world to roll to the degree that page deserves
He collected $50,000 minus kickstarter fees and promised 1000 books, but decided to go "ABOLISH THE WAGE SYSTEM" instead of deliver?
I hope he gets help and makes this right for the backers.
nah i mean i agree with this in principle - like everyone else, i have had many many great friendships that i haven't maintained but still feel were really valuable to me and would never consider "taking back".
but weirdly enough the whole time i dated i never had the desire to date more than one person and, while i didn't generally see romantic relationships as a point on an inevitable track - i am only getting married for the first time at 40 - i also never really went into them expecting their demise.
my folks have been married 50 years this summer. i guess maybe my view of their marriage has influenced my sense of romantic relationships. also this kind of stubborn irish tradition i guess. my brothers are oriented the same way i am.
I wonder if there's any kind of genetic predisposition towards mono or poly sexuality, or if it is primarily or entirely a construct of culture.
I suspect that many of the traditionally sex-positive writers and researchers have avoided this topic previously because it seemed like it would end up, inevitably, as a way to attack the GLBT community in a roundabout fashion.
i think a lot of the heterosexual support for gay marriage comes from the moral primacy of monogamy
Which is weird, because part of the support is also a recognition of "well, everyone just does their own thing, hooray America!"
So you have contradictory messages in that society is now allowing homosexuals to get "real" married, as in a monogamous 1+1 traditional household marriage, while a big part of the message and validation behind allow gay marriage is letting individuals define their own sexual and romantic identities.
Ultimately, I think support for gay marriage, long-term, lends itself towards a society more willing to consider and eventually support non-traditional relationships.
So yes, Republicans,
you were right
gay marriage will destroy traditional marriage
its just nobody will care.
it's kind of sold both ways i think
it kind of appeals to social libertarianism, which is de rigeur in most left-wing individualism and also a newly (re?) emergent strain of conservatism
and also promises the goal of socially mainstreaming gays, which i guess appeals to a lot of people across the social spectrum kind of independently of political ideology.
the pushback to the second thing is going to find common cause with social conservatives as well as queer-identity ideologues, since both have a strong vested interest in maintaining the distinct otherness of homosexuals/ queers/ etc.
strange bedfellows i guess.
as far as support for poly marriage goes, i'll believe it when i see it. homosexuality and trans-genderism are able to be (barely) tolerated or supported because they don't particularly undercut near-universal social values. poly marriage totally does, and it's really only ever viewed in the US as an anthropological oddity.
Irond Will on
0
Element BrianPeanut Butter ShillRegistered Userregular
who the fuck is didney sebris and what nonsense did he just message me
is he saying that taking people's money and running is how he's fighting capitalism?
i don't
what?
I deserve the money, because money is a lie. I also deserve things. People should give me money so I can continue to purchase things without any expectation of consideration, mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
nah i mean i agree with this in principle - like everyone else, i have had many many great friendships that i haven't maintained but still feel were really valuable to me and would never consider "taking back".
but weirdly enough the whole time i dated i never had the desire to date more than one person and, while i didn't generally see romantic relationships as a point on an inevitable track - i am only getting married for the first time at 40 - i also never really went into them expecting their demise.
my folks have been married 50 years this summer. i guess maybe my view of their marriage has influenced my sense of romantic relationships. also this kind of stubborn irish tradition i guess. my brothers are oriented the same way i am.
I wonder if there's any kind of genetic predisposition towards mono or poly sexuality, or if it is primarily or entirely a construct of culture.
I suspect that many of the traditionally sex-positive writers and researchers have avoided this topic previously because it seemed like it would end up, inevitably, as a way to attack the GLBT community in a roundabout fashion.
i think a lot of the heterosexual support for gay marriage comes from the moral primacy of monogamy
Which is weird, because part of the support is also a recognition of "well, everyone just does their own thing, hooray America!"
So you have contradictory messages in that society is now allowing homosexuals to get "real" married, as in a monogamous 1+1 traditional household marriage, while a big part of the message and validation behind allow gay marriage is letting individuals define their own sexual and romantic identities.
Ultimately, I think support for gay marriage, long-term, lends itself towards a society more willing to consider and eventually support non-traditional relationships.
So yes, Republicans,
you were right
gay marriage will destroy traditional marriage
its just nobody will care.
I care very much.
It kind of feels like a betrayal, like I've been lied to.
I don't like that some people feel support for "non-traditional marriage" is tantamount to destruction of the institution, and that the people supporting it don't give a fuck because they want it destroyed.
That makes me very angry. It makes me want to abandon support for anything but what I have, to batten down the hatches and tell people to fuck off. Make something new you can not give a shit about and don't ruin this institution.
That is probably not what you want but if you can't have it both ways, then you'll drive me into opposing you and everything that leads to you.
+1
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
I don't like that some people feel support for "non-traditional marriage" is tantamount to destruction of the institution, and that the people supporting it don't give a fuck because they want it destroyed.
I guess I'm confused as to what you actually support, then.
0
CindersWhose sails were black when it was windyRegistered Userregular
I never know what to make of John Campbell. Everything from their faking faking depression to their recent coming out as trans, to the book burning is all such one long meltdown. I hope they get help.
So John Campbell, the guy who does Pictures for Sad Children, burned 127 copies of his latest book Sad Pictures for Children, filmed it, and included the video in an update on the page of the kickstarter he'd used to fund the book, along with a very long message about why.
that rant is really fucked up because he found a picture of the only black woman he knows who does webcomics and plastered it on his blog and acted like he was acting on her behalf
when she is friends with joel watson and did not give him her permission
he just put it up to give his rant some more legitimacy or something? thats fucked
i feel like there are not enough eyes in the world to roll to the degree that page deserves
the boohoohoo tumblr one?
i feel like he makes plenty of good points, but he is also making them through the kind of lens that is only forged by tumbling down the tumblr rabbit hole, where you spin around in your own ideology until you're constantly possessed by a throbbing, shrieking panic that you can barely control because everything is falling apart
i largely agree with his points in it though
Evil Multifarious on
+4
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
Hell, I think sexual orientation isn't as discrete as we make it out to be.
I mean
What is, really?
Over-hard fried eggs.
Either those yolks are runny, or they ain't.
+1
Dark Raven XLaugh hard, run fast,be kindRegistered Userregular
Apparently that new Pokemon anime clarified that Gym Leaders have a set of rules or whatever, saying they have a different lineup depending on which town the challenging trainer is from. So Brock is a chump, right? Because he's the "first" gym leader. But if you're a trainer from way the other side of Kanto, by the time you get to Brock he's authorized to take the gloves off.
in Singapore, evangelical churches can be pretty aggressive about converting youths, or reinforcing any existing nominal faith. I'm sure that's the case in the US too.
because the extent of cultural Christianity in Singapore is placid Anglicanism, young adult born-again Christians can roar out the doors of their church camp spouting anger and fury, but mostly to the bafflement of their existing peers. After a couple of weeks of confusion, most will adapt towards the weary apathy more typical of an evangelical adjusted to multicultural life - church is for meeting up with friends, youth group is for networking - but, well, you always see a few exceptions who decide that all their non-Christian friends worship demons, all their liberal friends are servants of Satan preaching immorality and sin, and - in particular - all their already-apathetic nominally Christian friends are literally faithless liars. And then they respond as you might expect from actually believing such things, rather than merely mouthing the words every Sunday: fury, dismay, disappointment. Nobody wants to join them in spreading the Word of God to the nations, not even their "Christian" "friends", and the discovery of such fair-weather betrayal cuts deep.
in the modern days of Facebook, you can observe such spectacular explosions from a distance away. And then you lose a friend, or you watch friends lose their friend. Sometimes they surface again years later, with wholly different groups of friends and with all their fervour evaporated, but sometimes they just fade from your life.
And that's how I feel when reading that Campbell post. Well, unpleasant memories.
Posts
Have you seen the amount of bamboo they eat? You'd go broke buying them dinner.
Wrong as I feel that primacy may be for some people, I can't disagree here.
I doubt that it's remotely as discrete as that.
Hell, I think sexual orientation isn't as discrete as we make it out to be.
I suspect that at best we'll be able to identify certain biological markers that have weak but detectable correlations on certain personality traits (and preferences, and behaviors) which themselves have weak but detectable correlations with certain types of romantic arrangement.
But I do think that people are often pushed into the closest matching box by various circumstances (in many different ways in life, not just with sexuality). If you're mostly satisfied with monogamy but you have a little tickle in the back of your brain about other people, that might not be enough to push you to break your vows. Or you may go through a slutty phase after a divorce because you're overcompensating for lack of sexy fun times during your marriage.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
So, so much avface
@tl dr
such is the cost of free two day delivery.
To;Dr Spool is moving to Cajun Country to become a short order chef in busy suburban bar with new servers.
Which is weird, because part of the support is also a recognition of "well, everyone just does their own thing, hooray America!"
So you have contradictory messages in that society is now allowing homosexuals to get "real" married, as in a monogamous 1+1 traditional household marriage, while a big part of the message and validation behind allow gay marriage is letting individuals define their own sexual and romantic identities.
Ultimately, I think support for gay marriage, long-term, lends itself towards a society more willing to consider and eventually support non-traditional relationships.
So yes, Republicans,
you were right
gay marriage will destroy traditional marriage
its just nobody will care.
I didn't see that. But I'm having a weird thing where some of the images on his tumblr aren't loading. Like, there's a big whitespace field for me at the top of that rant and there has been since yesterday. I thought it was just Campbell being Campbell.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
i feel like there are not enough eyes in the world to roll to the degree that page deserves
Well sure, pretending that a preliterate society represents some kind of Noble Savage ideal because it arguably lacks a particular word is approximately as senseless as arguing that Eskimos think differently because they have more words for describing snow.
Agreed, I guess a better way to phrase it is "I wonder if biological preferences for mono or poly relationships end up being as strong or stronger than cultural restrictions on the same, and what the breaking point and balance of each ends up being?"
Like I said, its a difficult topic to discuss because, well, everything.
is he saying that taking people's money and running is how he's fighting capitalism?
i don't
what?
stole a bunch of money
said fuck it, pissed it away, told the people he owed that he was abolishing the wage system
he's not a part of your system, maaaaan
rent is theft!
fucked up the google doc format while the entire deapartment was working on it, so everyone can see my little pink colored box frantically hop around the spreadsheet trying to fix things
Arch,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_goGR39m2k
His dad's not a phone, duh.
I want to start a Kickstarter project where one of the stretch goals will be "promise to not light your books on fire."
I am not sure what to make of any of this
He collected $50,000 minus kickstarter fees and promised 1000 books, but decided to go "ABOLISH THE WAGE SYSTEM" instead of deliver?
I hope he gets help and makes this right for the backers.
if three more people buy it, its market share will increase 150%!
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
it's kind of sold both ways i think
it kind of appeals to social libertarianism, which is de rigeur in most left-wing individualism and also a newly (re?) emergent strain of conservatism
and also promises the goal of socially mainstreaming gays, which i guess appeals to a lot of people across the social spectrum kind of independently of political ideology.
the pushback to the second thing is going to find common cause with social conservatives as well as queer-identity ideologues, since both have a strong vested interest in maintaining the distinct otherness of homosexuals/ queers/ etc.
strange bedfellows i guess.
as far as support for poly marriage goes, i'll believe it when i see it. homosexuality and trans-genderism are able to be (barely) tolerated or supported because they don't particularly undercut near-universal social values. poly marriage totally does, and it's really only ever viewed in the US as an anthropological oddity.
Arch,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_goGR39m2k
I deserve the money, because money is a lie. I also deserve things. People should give me money so I can continue to purchase things without any expectation of consideration, mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
*takes breathe* aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
"Windows Phone Projected to be Hottest Doorstop of the Holiday Season"
"Windows Phone Projected to be Most Popular OS for People Who Don't Own iOS, Android"
"Windows Phone Projected to be Reissued with Vista and Mail-In Rebate"
I care very much.
It kind of feels like a betrayal, like I've been lied to.
I don't like that some people feel support for "non-traditional marriage" is tantamount to destruction of the institution, and that the people supporting it don't give a fuck because they want it destroyed.
That makes me very angry. It makes me want to abandon support for anything but what I have, to batten down the hatches and tell people to fuck off. Make something new you can not give a shit about and don't ruin this institution.
That is probably not what you want but if you can't have it both ways, then you'll drive me into opposing you and everything that leads to you.
add a mod.
probably something about the papacy.
did not read
"Our people have no word for 'war'........
....
but we do have words for 'kill' and 'lots' and 'no, seriously, LOTS,' so we make do."
(Actually that's basically German as a language)
I mean
What is, really?
why are orcs crying?
Arch,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_goGR39m2k
Putin is a Jesuit. That is why?
I guess I'm confused as to what you actually support, then.
the boohoohoo tumblr one?
i feel like he makes plenty of good points, but he is also making them through the kind of lens that is only forged by tumbling down the tumblr rabbit hole, where you spin around in your own ideology until you're constantly possessed by a throbbing, shrieking panic that you can barely control because everything is falling apart
i largely agree with his points in it though
Sauron lost
Never forget
Over-hard fried eggs.
Either those yolks are runny, or they ain't.
That makes so much sense.
...doing that is only creepy when the sleeping creature is a human, right? It's kosher to secretly watch pandas sleep?
because the extent of cultural Christianity in Singapore is placid Anglicanism, young adult born-again Christians can roar out the doors of their church camp spouting anger and fury, but mostly to the bafflement of their existing peers. After a couple of weeks of confusion, most will adapt towards the weary apathy more typical of an evangelical adjusted to multicultural life - church is for meeting up with friends, youth group is for networking - but, well, you always see a few exceptions who decide that all their non-Christian friends worship demons, all their liberal friends are servants of Satan preaching immorality and sin, and - in particular - all their already-apathetic nominally Christian friends are literally faithless liars. And then they respond as you might expect from actually believing such things, rather than merely mouthing the words every Sunday: fury, dismay, disappointment. Nobody wants to join them in spreading the Word of God to the nations, not even their "Christian" "friends", and the discovery of such fair-weather betrayal cuts deep.
in the modern days of Facebook, you can observe such spectacular explosions from a distance away. And then you lose a friend, or you watch friends lose their friend. Sometimes they surface again years later, with wholly different groups of friends and with all their fervour evaporated, but sometimes they just fade from your life.
And that's how I feel when reading that Campbell post. Well, unpleasant memories.