HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » DirkGently » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 ... 27 28 29 30 31 32


Profile Information

Gender: Male
Hometown: Orlando
Home country: USA
Current location: Holistically detecting
Member since: Wed Jan 27, 2010, 03:59 PM
Number of posts: 12,151

Journal Archives

Atheism isn't nihilism, for God's sake.

And there's nothing about not buying anyone's transparently bogus bill of goods about Sky Fathers watching your diet and your sex life that's "bleak," either. Nor is the lack of literal truth in stories about deities an indication of a "purposeless" universe.

On the contrary, existence is immense, fascinating mystery. Life is a shockingly rare opportunity to Do Things and Think About Stuff. Most particles floating around out there are inert. Sure, life is short, and there's the misery and so forth, but there's obviously plenty to enjoy, and at least it's a chance to participate.

Think about that. You could be inert particles.

Saying life is bleak once its stripped of the notion that it's all about pleasing a superbeing whose ideas bear a curious similarity to some pretty backward stone-age desert dwellers doesn't make any more sense than saying there's no reason to act ethically without a set of instructions literally carved in stone, and the threat of hellfire if you don't follow them.

How small would your mind have to be to think THAT?

There is no "religious freedom" to hurt people.

Enough of the free ride for any heinous notion that can be found in someone's holy book. This idea, this notion that women are permitted to have sex to make babies for husbands, and otherwise are to be shamed and humiliated and attacked is EVIL.

If God said it, God is evil. If a political candidate supports it, they are promoting evil. It's not any less so because it's a traditional evil or a theological evil. If this idea is in your book, your book is evil. If it's the core of your religion, your religion is evil.

People can use birth control, period. Women may abort a pregnancy. Whomever is tasked with providing healthcare, be it employers or insurance companies or the government, must provide access to ALL healthcare.

Enough of these bryl-creamed peverts and their knowing smirks and sweaty palms and bullshit ancient texts.

Fuck. Them.

I think men have a different role in supporting feminism.

Feminism isn't our movement, any more than supporting equal rights for different ethnicities would make a white man a "black activist," or supporting gay rights makes a straight man a gay activist.

These are cultural positions which have activist movements because the people in them need to stop being defined and lead and corralled by the majority or culturally dominant group.

I think men have a right to have a take on the academic or sociological side of things and to engage as equals with minority or oppressed groups in discussions on social theory, patriarchy, etc. They are not incapable of understanding that there are points of view they can't fully appreciate, but that need space to be heard.

Men also have, or should have, a pro-woman point of view that is uniquely their own. Men are capable, at least, of possessing a profound appreciation for women that requires their continued physical, emotional, and spiritual well being. This requires, among other things, supporting feminism.

But men aren't needed to lead, define, validate, or limit feminism itself. Men especially don't need to watchdog to make sure feminism doesn't "get out hand," or to make sure some sliver of male privilege isn't whittled away too much. It's a point of view men need to support, but which they are not an actual part of.

Seems like that's kind of the point.

A worldwide movement can't be condemned b/c someone thinks some "were rude." Stupid to suggest.

Rude? Really? Rude is the problem? We should abandon or dismiss the most vital, active, widespread response to the worldwide destruction and theft wrought by the owners of the status quo because someone claims someone was "rude?"

As far as that goes, they should be rude. Polite's not getting it done. Please and thank you and where is the voting booth please has not helped. This is not the time to select the salad fork and dab the lips with a napkin.

People are pissed. They're not getting un-pissed any time soon. They are reminding the powers that be in this country that when they suppose their "constituents" are banks and defense contractors and oil companies, that they are wrong, and that the needs of the people they are in fact to represent cannot be ignored. POLITELY or otherwise.

The bashing is predictable. OWS does not slot neatly into party politics. It does not support the notion that the anointed representatives need our money so THEY can fix things. OWS points out, inconveniently, that "they" cannot. This is not the accepted paradigm. It does not fit into the Business Plan.

It's not fucking polite.

It's not supposed to be.

The "war on terror" IS the new McCarthyism. Same lie that it's to protect us. Same authoritarianism.

There's just no other way to frame it. We are not in danger of being overrun by terrorist hordes. Government agencies are not handcuffed by the Constitution.

There are no "hostilities" going on within our borders that make it analogous to an active war zone.

I keep hearing that this is not so bad. That it can get so much worse. That's the same as hearing that the middle class is doing fine because we're not, currently, living in mud huts and warming ourselves over burning dung.

This law is rightwing, anti-Constitutional, anti-American, authoritarian police-state policy. It does not, by itself, create a complete police state.

But you can't have a complete police state without laws like this in place.

There is no excuse. It is not okay. This is wrong on all levels.
Go to Page: « Prev 1 ... 27 28 29 30 31 32