Evangelicalism isn't a culture, it's a cult. One that they belong to and you don't which makes them better than you and gives them the right to punish you.
Funny events in anti-woke world
- Thread starter Agema
- Start date
Nah, considering that most of the historical heresies that were violently suppressed were *still* closer to mainstream Christian doctrine than them, they've have been wiped out as soon as someone in power heard about them.
In the context of Russia actually nuking the UK (which is what all those are playing on), a fear which they have been pushing and implying for ages now in various ways? No, not really. Another one from today just to clarify the context...
All they are doing is Putin's job for him. There's no talk of Ukrainian struggles outside of how awesome the UK is for giving them equipment and helping them. It's just parroting nationalist macho talk from people who are known to talk nationalist macho shit, cause they know there's nowt more effective at striking existential fears in their own nationalists than nuclear strikes. They want that red scare back so bad.
-
Unrelated oddity...
Last edited:
Ironic coming from the guy that's willing to suck the dick of a tyrant, yet his so-called savior won't help him.
www.google.com
Alex Jones calls judge a ‘tyrant’ as Sandy Hook trial resumes
‘I was not wrong about Sandy Hook on purpose,’ conspiracy theorist says
www.google.com
I'm "willing to discuss" whatever is brought up. So far, the prudes have been focusing on that specific illustration, so I have too.
It's labelled "this is the visual I'd been picturing", followed immediately by the context you keep ignoring about how it wasn't rewarding. The "latest ship" pic is... two boys kissing. That's not even sex.
I don't know what you expect from a coming-of-age story.
Yes, I'm well aware that you're happy to reduce, exaggerate or misrepresent the substance of a book if it makes you uncomfortable.
The content made you uncomfortable. That's all there is here. That doesn't mean it's obscene. The actual content is tame by coming-of-age story standards; it's just had an outsized impact on you personally because you're weirded out. That's no reason to misrepresent what's in there.
You know, 100%, that that sequence isn't intended to be arousing. If you pretend otherwise, you'll be lying; because it's blindingly obvious and you're not stupid.
Yes, yes it does. This is literally a case where a teacher put up a protest poster, a mom scanned it, saw the top book on the list (which had a prominently mentioned upcoming reading event at the time), looked into it, got upset and complained to the school board.
Here's a Twitter thread with clips of the mom in question that started this incident:
To be clear, this is HB 1775 which I assume is the law you are dubbing "reprehensible":
https://legiscan.com/OK/text/HB1775/id/2387002/Oklahoma-2021-HB1775-Enrolled.pdf
https://sde.ok.gov/sites/default/files/documents/files/HB 1775 Emergency Rules.pdf
I was told earlier in this very thread that that law was irrelevant because I couldn't see how the conduct described in all the news articles violated it, so I questioned if that was the full extent of her controversial conduct.
It literally isn't about the book because they're threatening the teacher, both physically and monetarily, when she didn't push a book.
Dude, it's exactly like thier approach to immigration
If there is one bad immigrants, you have to ban all immigrants. If you show a good immigrants, you are automatically letting in criminal immigrants
There is one bad book in the banned list, so all the books are bad. If you show there is a book is good despite being on the banned list, you're pro whatever bad messages there are in other book
One thing I find kinda funny with the anti woke world is the name they give themselves.
Geeks and Gamers, Nerdrotic, Justsomeguy. All names rather transparently chosen to make it seem as if they're just average joes giving you an insight about what the ''real fans'' are thinking.
Geeks and Gamers, Nerdrotic, Justsomeguy. All names rather transparently chosen to make it seem as if they're just average joes giving you an insight about what the ''real fans'' are thinking.
I mean, they're just normal people enjoying their niche billion dollar hobbies. It's everybody else who are opinion-having interlopers.
You're going to leave out that the boys are entirely nude and layered on top of one another? Seriously?
You've given 3 paragraphs of strawman. Congratulations.
How do you think gay men have sex?
I'll give a hint: it would be difficult from that angle.
You've spent several pages labelling something as pornography that you know is not intended to be arousing, so this is a bit rich.
"They're only frotting, it's practically Sesame Street" - Silvanus
You're literally imagining that in the image. There's no depiction of frotting.
-----
RE: all the other guff... look, there's some tremendous arrogance on display in your armchair analysis here. I don't know what's convinced you that you know more about the identities and personal struggles of strangers than they do themselves, but it's not the first time. To be perfectly frank: it's not insightful. It's simplistic, detached, mostly-derisory guff.
And writing a memoir about having difficulties as a queer teenager, including some unrewarding sexual experiences, does not make one "sex-obsessed". Older teenagers think about sex and it affects their lives dramatically. They talk about sex. They worry and get anxious about sex. Not everyone responds with the same self-repression you seem to be expecting from (queer) older teens and young adults.
You've leapt to extreme, personally insulting conclusions ("pervert") because the content made you uncomfortable, and you assume you know others' experiences better than them, so what's fine for you must work for everyone. But frankly you know bugger all about ordinary teenage experiences (evidently) and what makes you uncomfortable is fucking irrelevant.
Last edited:
And this is bad why?
Are you going to lecture us on the queer experience..
Go on, tell us what the "real" queer experience is. I'd love to hear what you think.
Also, "pervert" is an interesting word isn't it. What do you think it means?
Do you mean that it isn't pornographic and doesn't give a kind of scopophilic enjoyment you would expect of pornography?
Have you considered that maybe it isn't meant to be pornographic, and that there might be other forms of fun at play in this instance?
How often do you see straight cis women dressed like they're in a pride parade?
Again, there are obvious dimensions here which you're not seeing.
Why is that an important or necessary thing to consider?
Do you think the regret in that case is that they had careers or had sex and that these women all wish they'd gone and become housewives or nuns, or do you think the regret is that they sometimes made bad decisions because, as women engaging in a life pattern traditionally restricted to men, they didn't have a clear understanding or guidance on how to live the kind of life they wanted to live.
Those are completely different forms of regret.
Are you the authority on empowerment?
The men who actually have the greatest material power in our society, the political and business elite, may not be walking stereotypes, but they certainly aren't defined in any kind of meaningful opposition to those stereotypes. Sexual repression and career failure is not really the power move you seem to imagine it is.
Last edited:
Don't forget about "The Mysterious" Mr. Enter and NoBullshit. The latter especially is just a younger, and even lamer, version of:
Review Tech USA is also under my shit list too. He's not anti-woke exactly, but he's done shady crap in the past, and encouraged the harassment of another YouTube user that had done nothing wrong to him or anyone else. Rich tries to come off as a "deep and sensitive" average joe, but he's just another loud mouth, tabloid spreading, egotistical, rumor gossiping, know nothing know it all, jackass. He no longer even reviews technology nor computer parts. He stopped doing that by 2014. The review tech is in-name only. Has been for nearly a decade now.
...The Banned Books list? It's long, and has only been growing since it was first created in 1982. Point of fact, it's a bit of a misnomer as - strictly speaking - no books are technically banned in the United States. It consists of books that various chuckleheads have tried to get pulled and/or banned over the years, ranging from Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings for "Witchcraft" and Bridge to Terebithia for "promoting secular humanism" to Fight Club for having sexual and violent content and anarchist themes, and Mein Kampf for - naturally - Nazism. For this year alone, the American Library Association counted 681 attempts to get 1,651 different titles pulled in the last 8 month period.
What makes this especially stupid is that promoting the contents of the list has actually been not only endorsed but celebrated - at least in the States - for as long as I can remember, with libraries, schools, and businesses basically using it as a suggested reading list of sorts. No, seriously. The general sentiment basically being in line with a little ditty from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade:
Which is to say that the general sentiment has long been that act of trying to ban books is the domain of idiots and antithetical to the very purpose of libraries (which are responsible for Banned Books Week, the annual campaign that the list was first crafted for, and that we just reentered the other day). And moreover, that it hearkens back to the intellectual repression under Nazi Germany and their infamous burnings of books they deemed subversive or included (or otherwise represented) peoples and ideologies that weren't in line with the regime's approved values. And frankly, that broadly tracks, with the reasons that people have tried to have the books banned often being more telling than the books themselves and rarely flattering to the people who made the attempt.
People tried to get Animal Farm banned for "encouraging revolt". People tried to get the His Dark Materials Series banned for having atheistic and anti-religious themes. The Autobiography of Malcolm X for having a political viewpoint and anti-white sentiment. The Awakening for having sexual content and suicide. A Handmaid's Tale for denigrating Christianity. Their Eyes Were Watching God because it contained sexual content, crude language, and murder.
Almost without exception, the efforts to ban a given book reeks of the same intellectual cowardice: that books are dangerous if they aren't obviously in lockstep with the speakers' ideologies, or even if they simply fail to evangelize them to the speakers' satisfaction. Hell, you know what the most challenged book of 2018, 2019, and 2020 was? George, because it "contained LGBT content" (being about a trans girl seeking her mother's acceptance and understanding), "conflicted with a specific religious viewpoint", "conflicting the traditional family structure", and because it did not "reflect the values of our community".
You know why Gender Queer was at the top of the list this year? Because since 2001, the American Library Association has drawn attention to the ten most challenged books of the year before, and Gender Queer was the most challenged book of 2021.
That's what makes this entire thing so frustrating. "Dear god, some teacher was pointing people to the banned books list that libraries, schools, and businesses around the country have promoted EVERY YEAR SINCE 1982! But this time it's totally bad behavior that traces to the liberal agenda to corrupt our children, and we need to make sure that subversive gets her just deserts!"
Last edited:
To just give a small anecdote about how entirely uncontroversial this used to be, my childhood grade school, a fairly conservative Catholic parochial K-8 school, celebrated Banned Book Week literally every year throughout my attendance in the 90s/00s, with the school librarian even going as far as sharing printouts of the top-ten challenged list and ensuring every student was signed up for a card with their local municipal library....The Banned Books list? It's long, and has only been growing since it was first created in 1982. Point of fact, it's a bit of a misnomer as - strictly speaking - no books are technically banned in the United States. It consists of books that various chuckleheads have tried to get pulled and/or banned over the years, ranging from Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings for "Witchcraft" and Bridge to Terebithia for "promoting secular humanism" to Fight Club for having sexual and violent content and anarchist themes, and Mein Kampf for - naturally - Nazism. For this year alone, the American Library Association counted 681 attempts to get 1,651 different titles pulled in the last 8 month period.
What makes this especially stupid is that promoting the contents of the list has actually been not only endorsed but celebrated - at least in the States - for as long as I can remember, with libraries, schools, and businesses basically using it as a suggested reading list of sorts. No, seriously. The general sentiment basically being in line with a little ditty from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade:
Which is to say that the general sentiment has long been that act of trying to ban books is the domain of idiots and antithetical to the very purpose of libraries (which are responsible for Banned Books Week, the annual campaign that the list was first crafted for, and that we just reentered the other day). And moreover, that it hearkens back to the intellectual repression under Nazi Germany and their infamous burnings of books they deemed subversive or included (or otherwise represented) peoples and ideologies that weren't in line with the regime's approved values. And frankly, that broadly tracks, with the reasons that people have tried to have the books banned often being more telling than the books themselves and rarely flattering to the people who made the attempt.
People tried to get Animal Farm banned for "encouraging revolt". People tried to get the His Dark Materials Series banned for having atheistic and anti-religious themes. The Autobiography of Malcolm X for having a political viewpoint and anti-white sentiment. The Awakening for having sexual content and suicide. A Handmaid's Tale for denigrating Christianity. Their Eyes Were Watching God because it contained sexual content, crude language, and murder.
Almost without exception, the efforts to ban a given book reeks of the same intellectual cowardice: that books are dangerous if they aren't obviously in lockstep with the speakers' ideologies, or even if they simply fail to evangelize them to the speakers' satisfaction. Hell, you know what the most challenged book of 2018, 2019, and 2020 was? George, because it "contained LGBT content" (being about a trans girl seeking her mother's acceptance and understanding), "conflicted with a specific religious viewpoint", "conflicting the traditional family structure", and because it did not "reflect the values of our community".
You know why Gender Queer was at the top of the list this year? Because since 2001, the American Library Association has drawn attention to the ten most challenged books of the year before, and Gender Queer was the most challenged book of 2021.
That's what makes this entire thing so frustrating. "Dear god, some teacher was pointing people to the banned books list that libraries, schools, and businesses around the country have promoted EVERY YEAR SINCE 1982! But this time it's totally bad behavior that traces to the liberal agenda to corrupt our children, and we need to make sure that subversive gets her just deserts!"