(Source: wordsandlyrics, via moseisleywelcomingcommittee)
Yup. You’re a bad person. Not even close.
Yeah, here’s the thing about this. If you say it’s okay to be all “against gay marriage” because of your religion, here’s what I have to ask you: are you advocating against the legality of other things your religion says is a bad? Like, say, graven images? Do you protest against Supernatural because it has angels in it? Do you call your local political representative to request the repeal of laws that allow divorce? Do you fight to shut down all shops and services on the Sabbath? Are you fighting to put laws in place against adultery? Birth control? (LOL: MAYBE!) Maybe cheating on your spouse should have a jail term attached to it, what do you think about that? While we’re at it, dissing your parents on the internet should be illegal too. Because there’s a commandment about that. Should come with at least a fine, right? Good idea? No?
From what I can tell, you folks are fine with some rules from the bible being personal ethical guidelines for your community rather than national laws. You think adultery is wrong, so you don’t do it. Swearing is bad, so you avoid it and ask for forgiveness when you fail. But you don’t insist that these things become illegal, because that would totally cramp your style. But when it comes to gays getting equal rights, suddenly it’s important that there’s an actual law against it. Suddenly the definition of marriage is really important. It’s not enough to be a guiding principle for a community of believers anymore, oh no. Now it has to be law for everyone, including people who don’t see the world the way you do, and don’t share your religious views.
Your religion has no place in the laws that govern me. If you think being gay is a bad thing, you shouldn’t find your ethical high ground in standing in the way of laws that allow equal rights for all. Because it’s not your place, and not your religion’s place, to punish me for something you think your god doesn’t like. And you know what, your Jesus said the same fucking thing. IRONICALLY.
And that, my friend, is why you really are a bad person if you don’t support gay marriage.
also. this quote is the equivalent of a white person in the 50s or 60s saying “just because I don’t like black people doesn’t mean I’m a bad person”
No, it doesn’t.
There is a difference between “I don’t like,” or “I don’t support,” and “I think we should repress and destroy and disallow opportunities for this.”
If you don’t like black people, don’t hang out with black people.
If you don’t like preps, don’t hang out with preps.
If you don’t like goths, don’t hang out with goths.
If you don’t like gays, don’t hang out with gays.
Don’t give money to gay or black or whatever charities.
Don’t go to rallies or parades.
Don’t help the gay or black or whatever person pin up flyers around your neighborhood.
THIS IS FINE.
But it is -not- fine to bully them, oppress them, enslave them, or make their behavior illegal.
IT IS FINE TO DISLIKE WHAT YOU DISLIKE.
IT IS NOT FINE TO PRETEND THAT YOUR DISLIKE DICTATES HUMAN RIGHTS.
Pretending that other people’s dislike, non-support, or other forms of negative opinion about something you care about or feel that you need makes the people who simply disagree with your viewpoint bad people makes you no better than them.
TO TELL ANYONE THAT THEIR OPINION MAKES THEM A BAD PERSON PUTS YOU OVER THERE IN THE SAME CAMP AS THEY ARE.Behavior makes bad people.
Opinions don’t.
It is possible to separate the two, and many people do it all the time.
Get it right.
(Source: the-unpopular-opinions, via moseisleywelcomingcommittee)
Probably the best part of readingHow to Read a Bookis the range of responses it gets. I was impressed with the amount of “trying to be ironic?” feedback it got. I sure got a laugh out of it. My sophomore and senior year high school English teacher used to reference Adler’s “guide to intelligent reading” at least once every three weeks. I had to read it. And I’m really glad I did. I think his method for analytical reading is a little overkill, but he’s an awesome writer, with such sound, logical arguments its really easy to follow what he’s saying and why it works. There’s a few moments where I don’t entirely agree with his logic and he sounds like a really, really old man (to be fair, it was first published in 1940), but I get why it stands the test of time. It really is a guide to taking your time and thinking about your reading, which, I agree, makes for the best reading. Unfortunately it just isn’t practical to follow his intense steps for every read, and I think it makes best sense for serious academic situations. Maybe I’ll give it a legit try over the summer, or if I ever make it back to school. I was a bit disappointing with his notion of “Syntopical” reading, which he called the highest level of reading. Really he just maps out how to do research on a topic - which is dandy, but hardly what I was hoping for. I think I’ve been taught dumbed down versions of his ideas, but it was surprisingly enjoyable to read through his incredibly detailed thought process. Below is a really, really amazing chart that summarizes the entire book. Dig:
Advice for young feminists? Do something else besides feminism. I’m serious. The feminist blogosphere is oversaturated in my opinion. Please, find something else you love and take feminist theory there. It gets lonely over here in tech and video games – I have a great crew of other feminists but we are a little island in a vast sea. We need more feminist minded business bloggers, feminist theory wielding finance bloggers. Labor organizers with a feminist lens blogging. Can you imagine what Deadspin (the sports blog) would look like with a feminist on staff? Restructure writes about science, tech and feminism – join her! Publish a blog doing literary criticism with a feminist lens! Take on the NYT! Talk about class issues and feminism. Whatever it is, apply your feminism in a different space.
Latoya Peterson (Source) (via andcouldheplayblog)
hmmmmm…i wonder what peterson counts as a “different space”…i need more context to know whether i’m behind this quote.
(via fromthemargintothecenter)
I support this (looking at you Emily)! I’m less concerned with the concentration of feminism in specific spheres (blogosphere being one) and more concerned with spreading out the knowledge of gender literate people. To the blogs!
(via fromthemargintothecenter)
My friend bob showed me this… AMAZING! For all the Catan nerds out there, this shit made me giggle like a motherfucker.
Current Difficulty Setting: Medium
This is probably the best explanation of privilege I’ve heard in a long while… Read it. Basically, it uses a video game analogy that is spot the fuck on. Life is easier for some people and harder for others. This is sad, and while I think we’re getting better as a society there are forces at work who are trying to maintain the status quo. Usually, these forces are White, heterosexual males because, and this is important, they really really like the way the world is. Why wouldn’t they? It’s totally awesome for them. Anyway, make sure you read the article so we can talk about it.
I’ll wait. Go ahead. Actually, I’m gonna go play video games, but there will be a quiz later so do your readings.
Slut” is how we vilify a woman for exercising her right to say “yes”. “Friendzone” is how we vilify a woman for exercising her right to say “no”.
(via babyrandy)
I am guilty of this… I definitely talk about friendzoning a lot. While I understand the argument, I don’t feel like I’m shaming women for saying “no” to men. To me, the problem with “friendzoning” isn’t the fact that women are denying men what they want, the problem is what people are looking for in their prospective partners. Obviously, this isn’t exclusive to women, though in my personal experience my female friends have struggled with this more than my male friends have.
The “disneyification” of love and romance makes it very difficult for men to live up to the impossible standards set by the media. Specifically, the idea of romance and the way that someone is supposed to pursue their love interest is embarrassing and often little more than glorified stalking. I try to remind my lady friends about this when they complain about the lack of good men in their lives: it’s very difficult to pursue a confident and secure woman when you yourself are insecure and not sure how to go about it. “Friendzoning” is often the result, with a non-traditional (“traditional” in this case meaning “confident,” more or less) man being cast aside as uninterested or uninteresting.
(Source: angels-and-angles, via moseisleywelcomingcommittee)
Pizza Rolls on Pizza Bagel bites On Personal Pizzas on a Pizza.
America.
what a nice salad
what a nice salad
what a nice salad
WHAT A NICE SALAD….
what a nice salad
what a nice salad
‘MERICAN SALAD
I’m (expletive deleted) starving.
Celebrity chef Mario Batali • Discussing the diet he’s currently on — he’s eating like he’s on food stamps (an average of $1.48 per meal, or $31 per week) in protest of potential cuts to the federal food stamps program. His family was nice enough to join him in what he calls a conversation starter about being hungry in the U.S. Unlike most people on food stamps, he knows ways to make the best of a bad situation, smartly sticking to foods like lentils, apples, rice, beans, peanut butter and jelly. But the problem is, eating good on a diet like this is tough, so many do not. Think his family’s experiment will be effective? (via shortformblog)
(via reagan-was-a-horrible-president)
A teacher in New York was teaching her class about bullying and gave them the following exercise to perform. She had the children take a piece of paper and told them to crumple it up, stomp on it and really mess it up but do not rip it. Then she had them unfold the paper, smooth it out and look at how scarred and dirty it was. She then told them to tell it they’re sorry. Now even though they said …they were sorry and tried to fix the paper, she pointed out all the scars they left behind. And that those scars will never go away no matter how hard they tried to fix it. That is what happens when a child bullies another child, they may say they’re sorry but the scars are there forever. The looks on the faces of the children in the classroom told her the message hit home. Pass it on.
(Source: , via reagan-was-a-horrible-president)
Heartbreaking Tearjerker of the Day: In 1988, Nicholas Winton’s wife revealed to the BBC his long-kept secret: He’d saved 669 children from the Nazis at the dawn of World War II through his organization of the Czech Kindertransport. (This clip is from a BBC program that honored the “British Schindler” by inviting some 80 of the children he saved to surprise him in the audience.) In all, more than 5,000 people owe their lives to Winton.
In the more than two decades since the media got wind of his humanitarian exploits, Winton has been knighted, had a minor planet named after him, been commemorated by two statues — one each in Prague and London — and been the subject of three films and a play.
Winton still wears a ring given to him by some of the children he saved. It is inscribed with a line from the Talmud, the book of Jewish law: “Save one life, save the world.” He celebrates his 103rd birthday this week.
[reddit]
(via reagan-was-a-horrible-president)
The following quotations are taken from official court records across the nation, showing how funny and embarrassing it is that recorders operate at all times in courts of law, so that even the slightest inadvertence is preserved for posterity.
- Lawyer:"Was that the same nose you broke as a child?"
- Witness:"I only have one, you know."
- Lawyer:"Now, Mrs. Johnson, how was your first marriage terminated?"
- Witness:"By death."
- Lawyer:"And by whose death was it terminated?"
- Accused, Defending His Own Case:"Did you get a good look at my face when I took your purse?"
- Lawyer:"What is your date of birth?"
- Witness:"July 15th."
- Lawyer:"What year?"
- Witness:"Every year."
- Lawyer:"What gear were you in at the moment of the impact?"
- Witness:"Gucci sweats and Reeboks."
- Lawyer:"Can you describe what the person who attacked you looked like?"
- Witness:"No. He was wearing a mask."
- Lawyer:"What was he wearing under the mask?"
- Witness:"Er...his face."
- Lawyer:"This myasthenia gravis -- does it affect your memory at all?"
- Witness:"Yes."
- Lawyer:"And in what ways does it affect your memory?"
- Witness:"I forget."
- Lawyer:"You forget. Can you give us an example of something that you've forgotten?"
- Lawyer:"How old is your son, the one living with you?"
- Witness:"Thirty-eight or thirty-five, I can't remember which."
- Lawyer:"How long has he lived with you?"
- Witness:"Forty-five years."
- Lawyer:"What was the first thing your husband said to you when he woke that morning?"
- Witness:"He said, 'Where am I, Cathy?'"
- Lawyer:"And why did that upset you?"
- Witness:"My name is Susan."
- Lawyer:"Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?"
- Witness:"No."
- Lawyer:"Did you check for blood pressure?"
- Witness:"No."
- Lawyer:"Did you check for breathing?"
- Witness:"No."
- Lawyer:"So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?"
- Witness:"No."
- Lawyer:"How can you be so sure, Doctor?"
- Witness:"Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar."
- Lawyer:"But could the patient have still been alive nevertheless?"
- Witness:"Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law somewhere."
- Lawyer:"What happened then?"
- Witness:"He told me, he says, 'I have to kill you because you can identify me.'"
- Lawyer:"Did he kill you?"
- Witness:"No."
- Lawyer:"Now sir, I'm sure you are an intelligent and honest man--"
- Witness:"Thank you. If I weren't under oath, I'd return the compliment."
- Lawyer:"You were there until the time you left, is that true?"
- Lawyer:"So you were gone until you returned?"
- Lawyer:"The youngest son, the 20 year old, how old is he?"
- Lawyer:"Were you alone or by yourself?"
- Witness:"He was about medium height and had a beard."
- Lawyer:"Was this a male or a female?"
- Lawyer:"I show you Exhibit 3 and ask you if you recognize that picture."
- Witness:"That's me."
- Lawyer:"Were you present when that picture was taken?"
- Lawyer:"Were you present in court this morning when you were sworn in?"
- Lawyer:"Do you know how far pregnant you are now?"
- Witness:"I'll be three months on November 8."
- Lawyer:"Apparently, then, the date of conception was August 8?"
- Witness:"Yes."
- Lawyer:"What were you doing at that time?"
- Lawyer:"She had three children, right?"
- Witness:"Yes."
- Lawyer:"How many were boys?"
- Witness:"None."
- Lawyer:"Were there girls?"
- Lawyer:"You say that the stairs went down to the basement?"
- Witness:"Yes."
- Lawyer:"And these stairs, did they go up also?"
- Lawyer:"What is your brother-in-law's name?"
- Witness:"Borofkin."
- Lawyer:"What's his first name?"
- Witness:"I can't remember."
- Lawyer:"He's been your brother-in-law for years, and you can't remember his first name?"
- Witness:"No. I tell you, I'm too excited." (rising and pointing to his brother-in-law) "Nathan, for heaven's sake, tell them your first name!"
- Lawyer:"Did you ever stay all night with this man in New York?"
- Witness:"I refuse to answer that question.
- Lawyer:"Did you ever stay all night with this man in Chicago?"
- Witness:"I refuse to answer that question.
- Lawyer:"Did you ever stay all night with this man in Miami?"
- Witness:"No."
- Lawyer:"Doctor, how many autopsies have you performed on dead people?"
- Witness:"All my autopsies have been performed on dead people."
- Lawyer:"Were you acquainted with the deceased?"
- Witness:"Yes sir."
- Lawyer:"Before or after he died?"
- Lawyer:"When he went, had you gone and had she, if she wanted to and were able, for the time being excluding all the restraints on her not to go, gone also, would he have brought you, meaning you and she, with him to the station?"
- Other Lawyer:"Objection. That question should be taken out and shot."
- Lawyer:"And what did he do then?"
- Witness:"He came home, and next morning he was dead."
- Lawyer:"So when he woke up the next morning he was dead?"
- Lawyer:"Could you see him from where you were standing?"
- Witness:"I could see his head."
- Lawyer:"And where was his head?"
- Witness:"Just above his shoulders."
- Lawyer:"Any suggestions as to what prevented this from being a murder trial instead of an attempted murder trial?"
- Witness:"The victim lived."
"Cento" Copyright © Andrew Brinker 2011.
