The presupposition of religious zealots is unfalsifiable.
This is not how truth is determined. This is pure faith, and the exact opposite of science.
This is from the Washington STEM Summit 2021. Which is not a summit of STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) practitioners, but STEM teachers. It’s about creating activist pedagogy (ways things are taught) to create activist students as a priority, rather than teaching STEM principles and skills as a priority. It’s corrupt, irresponsible and astonishingly unethical.
And constitutes science denial at a STEM conference.
The Catholic Position
What is the Catholic position concerning belief or unbelief in evolution? The question may never be finally settled, but there are definite parameters to what is acceptable Catholic belief.
"...everyone must “confess the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing”
“...if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.”
"...we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.”
"... it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution.”
The slide shown above outlines acceptable canon based on religious doctrine. If you don’t follow it, you’re a blaspheming heretic.
20 notes · View notes
Lā O Nā Mākuahine
Lā O Nā Mākuahine
Happy Mother’s Day to all. I lost my parents years ago and I miss them dearly. I feel for those that never knew their mother. There are many children that lost their mothers, as with adults. Our parents should be held in reverence. They did bring us into the world.
It distresses me when I hear people talk down the significance of Mother’s Day. Especially leftist women that advocate for the Woke…
View On WordPress
as an autistic person im immune to the knowledge that elongated muskrat is autistic because i already knew we were a bunch of reckless bigots who put our special interests above human lives
Not just denying but outright rejecting a shared humanity sure is working out super-well for humanity.
Critical Theory is a universal solvent. By design.
24 notes · View notes
Having diversity shouldn't cost you in quality, that's the reason why I'm so adamant about calling out pandering towards minorities, because im starting starting to see a trend of companies obviously putting less and less quality into the products they are advertising towards the minorities they claim they want to empower.
From only hiring black people in front of the public but never in the backstage, to making "diverse" toys with a abysmal lack of quality, to only bringing black people when it's time for them to shame White People™ and separate the corporation from their privileges outside of race, to making damn sure to always hire the most acceptable skin shades of black, kind of gay (for either political side) and disabilities.
While some smooth brained people think "Get woke, go broke" applies to just showing gay people and black people exist, to me it is about corporations prioritizing showing that they have minorities on call for PR and that they prioritize virtue signaling instead of making a good a product.
I'm going to use dolls as a example since they are a bit of a niche interest of mine. While companies like Mattel have objectively shown to care about having diversity in their toy lines such as Barbie, they have also show that they are not prioritizing making a good products with quality they have been know for.
There's no reason for their doll line with the most diversity also be the cheapest, to be so goddamn ugly design wise, have cheap printed on fabric, no articulation for most of the characters and just in general there's no reason for other companies fashion doll lines, with half or even less of the diversity in their products, to be doing what you aren't Mattel.
Diversity shouldn't be a excuse for doing less, for downgrading in quality and being cheap.
I want ethnic characters that aren't replacing established white characters.
I want media being directed by ethnic people and I want them to get just as much of a payment as their white counter parts
I want ethnic MUAs, film crews, costume designers, screen writers, producers and behind the scenes people on anything even if it's not a black lead movie or media.
If you are gonna cheap out and do quantity over quality the moment you suddenly realize there's more than white money to be collected by pandering to us then no thank you, go woke get broke.
3 notes · View notes
it should go without saying but: christianity is incorrect, the bible is just a book written by people, none of it is true. jesus was just a guy.
6 notes · View notes
hey dont call yourself pro ship man, like you can ship characters as long as they're not underage and/or siblings or whatever, but please please dont like, side with and identify with proshippers. They advocate for incestual and pedophilic relationships. Anti's don't have a problem with normal healthy ships, it's only when it's something fucked up that it becomes an issue. I have two friends who are victims of CSA, one of whom was groomed by a fan artist of an obscure cartoon and drew nsfw shipping art of two minors. So this shit matters to me a lot. "pro shippers" are not your friend and you shouldn't side with them please.
I hope this doesn't make you feel bad, I can tell you're a decent person and you don't condone that kind of stuff, I just hope you realize it makes you look like you do and it makes "pro shippers" feel ok with their morally wrong ships.
...... There’s so much wrong with this I don’t even know where to start.
Hey, anon, your tone is very nice. But you’re clearly not old enough to be on my tumblr. I don’t even...
You seem to have a good heart, but what you don’t understand is you’re still advocating for censorship. Regardless of your personal moral compass, you CANNOT can not police other humans. And I could be like “You don’t know where they’re coming form why they’re engaging in certain media” but honestly??? IT DOESN’T MATTER.
YOU CAN NOT CENSOR OTHER HUMANS.
Like, do I get why people watched Hannibal? Nope, cannibalism is one of those things that really freaks me out. I can’t even watch Attack on Titan because the titans look humanoid but eat people. Do I think it’s all incredibly fucked up?
Am I going to try and enforce my moral standards on people who watch and engage with those fandoms? HELL NO.
I don’t really want to get into why censorship is bad. That was my senior final in my dual enrollment English course in 2010. I am twenty-eight years old and I’m gathering you might be of the perspective that I’m too old to engage in fandom, or I’m too old to be followed by minors.
And you know what? I won’t stop you. The unfollow button is right there. I appreciate that you think I’m a good person, random internet stranger, but I really don’t need your personal approval.
I’m sorry you’ve got a bad taste in your mouth due to friends experiences, but I can’t let bad experiences dictate my engagement with media or I would let my bad experiences and those of my friends rule my life -- and that’s not how to move on.
6 notes · View notes
An upside down world where 2+2=4, biological dimorphism, and verifiable statistics are heresy and blasphemous, while the subjectivity of “lived experience,” “my truth” and conspiracy theories are sacred and unassailable.
35 notes · View notes
An anthropology article from 1956 used to get around more than it does now, “Body Ritual Among the Nacirema.” Because my mother gave it to me to read when I was 13, of course what I remember most from it is that among the Nacirema, women with especially large breasts get paid to travel and display them. Nacirema was “American” spelled backwards—get it?—and the idea was to show how revealing, and even peculiar, our society is if described from a clinical distance.
These days, there is something else about the Nacirema—they have developed a new religion. That religion is antiracism. Of course, most consider antiracism a position, or evidence of morality. However, in 2015, among educated Americans especially, Antiracism—it seriously merits capitalization at this point—is now what any naïve, unbiased anthropologist would describe as a new and increasingly dominant religion. It is what we worship, as sincerely and fervently as many worship God and Jesus and, among most Blue State Americans, more so.
To someone today making sense of the Nacirema, the category of person who, roughly, reads The New York Times and The New Yorker and listens to NPR, would be a deeply religious person indeed, but as an Antiracist. This is good in some ways—better than most are in a position to realize. This is also bad in other ways—worse than most are in a position to realize.
The contemporary backlash to social justice politics should thus be seen primarily as what it was in the original heyday of Cold War liberalism: as a counter-revolution of comfortable elites against challenges to their authority, using appeals to liberal civic values against the “illiberalism” that animated an earlier anti-Communist alliance. Like the battles between established intellectuals and student protesters in the 1960s, theirs is a self-interested defense of status. Social justice politics ostensibly challenges the dominance of (mostly) older white men in American institutions, a dominance that was successfully defended in the 1960s. (Even now, “anti-woke” writing is the stuff of major book deals, magazine launches, and Substack advances, suggesting that the status quo may be less threatened than many of these writers like to claim.)
32 notes · View notes
Anyway, in addition to my dad (somewhat incorrectly) using the term woke. Yesterday an administrator from the school grounds asked me if I’d heard of the term/knew what it meant. I said yes and started to explain. No one likes my literal and historical explanations with large vocabulary, so I got talked over LOL. He tried to explain ‘woke’ to one of his peers with the help of another Boomer. Anyway, none of them appear to know what woke means in the true sense (they were using it in the cynical pop culture way) or where it came from. Language is interesting, but woke is probably not a term that should’ve been adopted by the wider public, given the importance of its original context.
3 notes · View notes
By: Obaid Omer
Published: April 23, 2021
I was raised in a religious Muslim home and practiced the faith for a long time. Eventually, I realized I was not a religious man, after spending a long time educating myself, immersed in our texts. Certain things bothered me after I investigated them deeply. I felt the hijab was misogynistic, and I opposed the strain of violence that had emerged from our holy books. Then there were the blasphemy laws outlined in the Quran, which seemed like the opposite of the liberal values I believe in. As a secular man, I went about my life, working as a contractor for the Canadian military for over a decade in Kosovo, Sudan, Bosnia, Haiti, and then Afghanistan. I encountered other Muslims, and others like me, who were not longer Muslim. But when I came back to Canada in 2014, I returned to a different country than the one I had left.
I had left a country that was proud of being the opposite of what bothered me about Islam, that was proud of a tradition of free inquiry and free speech, open debate and civil discourse. The Canada I returned to resembled the religion of my youth more than it did its opposite.
I left a culture that was steeped in a sentiment that could be summed up as, "I may disagree with what you say, but I respect your right to say it." I returned to a culture summarized by, "I disagree with what you say, so shut up."
Now, Ex-Muslims like me who criticized the religion of our youth were called horrible slurs: "house Muslims," "native informants," "Uncle Toms," or bounty bars, implying we were brown on the outside but white inside. Strangers called me a white supremacist for saying the hijab is misogynistic. In October of 2014, Sam Harris had his infamous exchange with Ben Affleck. Harris laid out a compelling case about Islam and spoke of its concentric circles of fundamentalism. Affleck called his argument "gross and racist."
The dam broke. Once they started calling it racist to criticize Islam, it was easy to shut the conversation down completely. The accusation meant the accused was morally beyond the pale, and thus completely dismissible. Words like micro-aggressions, trigger warnings, and safe spaces became mainstream. An emphasis on pervasive racism grew exponentially. To even question the extent to which racism was everywhere resulted in accusations of being a racist. Like with religious blasphemy codes, you can only talk about certain topics in specific ways.
I couldn't help but notice there was an almost fundamentalist, faith-like aspect to these claims. It was as if in the years since I'd been gone, our society had decided to adopt the blasphemy codes of my youth. When I heard people asked to check their privilege or introspect the ways they have been racist, it sounded like the inner jihad that Muslims are supposed to perform to make sure they are on the correct path.
How did this happen? How did the religious tenets I had abandoned come to take over the liberal culture I had abandoned them for?
To answer this question, I did what I had once done with the texts of Islam: I educated myself. I started reading about critical race theory and Intersectionality. I spent eighteen months reading critical social justice scholarship, and gender and queer theories. It was here I found the rejection of the Enlightenment values that made these theories closer to religion than to its opposite.
But there are many other similarities. In Islam, giving offense to the pious is considered a grave sin. Recall the 2015 murders at the French publication Charlie Hebdo; the artists had insulted the Prophet Muhammad and his followers, and thus deserved to die. But there's a less extreme version of causing harm through giving offense that's known as "fitna"—doing something that causes civil strife. A woman can cause fitna by dressing provocatively, as can someone who questions Islam publicly.
You can see this idea that giving offense causes harm everywhere in the new critical social justice culture. Anything that gives offense to marginalized people must be repressed for the good of society. And anyone criticizing people of color too strenuously or offending them must be deplaformed and canceled.
And just as in Islam, there is a jockeying for who is the accurate representation of the faith, Sunnis or Shia, in the social justice camp, believers decide who the true representatives of each oppressed group are. Fall afoul of the right political view and you will be denounced; people throw around terms such as "political blackness" or "multi-racial whiteness." Just as apostates from Islam are said to not have been real Muslims, detransitioners are told they were never really trans and Black people who speak out against the tenets of critical race theory are told they're not really Black.
In Muslim countries, biology textbooks will censor evolution. Now, due to gender theory, biology is similarly coming into conflict with an ideology—and losing. A mixture of post-colonial theory and critical race theory is behind a push to disrupt texts, a call to decolonize the Western Canon and school curricula. Critical social justice ideologies are in direct conflict with Enlightenment values and the rigors of the scientific method, like Islam, and are thus a huge threat to liberalism—like Islam.
I have had the good fortune to meet and speak with many brave people in the fights against fundamental Islam and critical social justice. As I once did when speaking to Muslims, I keep hearing about the silent majority that is opposed to CSJ.
That silent majority needs to become vocal very quickly. We need more people to be brave enough to speak up and push back. The long march through the institutions is sprinting into the final lap, and it cannot be allowed to win. Take it from an ex-Muslim.
Obaid Omer is a podcaster and free speech advocate. He was born in India and lives in Canada.
83 notes · View notes
Charlie McCarthy's cousin Kevin rails against 'wokeness' to distract you from the Liz Cheney purge
Charlie McCarthy's cousin Kevin rails against 'wokeness' to distract you from the Liz Cheney purge
GQP, the “radical cult that used to be a political party” now attacks “wokeness” to divert attention from their retribution against Liz Cheney’s vote against previous guy during the insurrection.
Rep. Kevin McCarthy: “The movement in this country about wokeness has got to stop.” pic.twitter.com/Vnrkm0N1bx
— The Hill (@thehill) May 4, 2021
That House Republicans appear to stand with serial…
View On WordPress
by Carl R. Trueman | I dentity politics is the new religion of the United States. Some will dissent from this claim. There are those who simply don’t want to see how deep-seated the factionalism of the public square now is. And there are those who have a vested interest in minimizing the righteous religiosity of what is commonly...
6 notes · View notes
Homeroom: I’m Concerned About Wokeness at My Child’s School https://ift.tt/3ekFyaB
CIA - Corrupt, Incompetent, Absurd
CIA – Corrupt, Incompetent, Absurd
Aloha kākou. When I was growing up, I always admired the Central Intelligence Agency as the foremost secret police agency in the world. James Bond was my favorite spy, but he was MI6 the British Secret Intelligence Service. There’s been thousands of CIA related movies all depicting heroes that saved the world from evil. But now, I’m not so sure anymore. Based on the latest CIA recruitment video…
View On WordPress
wow, my theme that I’ve been using for the last ~7 years got deleted and search only goes back two months now, more of the great work we’ve come to expect from @staff
4 notes · View notes
The trend of constantly inventing new ‘’woke’’ terminology for transgenderism is so exhausting because it forces people to change their language every 2 years without any logic or thought behind it.
‘‘Trans’‘ was originally coined as an umbrella term for ‘‘transgender, transsexual, and transvestite’‘ except the word transsexual is now considered a slur by some, and it doesn’t help that the word is also associated with the transmedicalist side of the transgender community. Of course the word transvestite also had to be dropped since it’s not considered a gender identity but rather simply an identity. I guess they’re not oppressed enough to be included or that the transgender community doesn’t want to associate itself with fetishists (despite many self-identified transgender people also being fetishists). So nowadays I think most people think ‘‘trans’‘ is simply a shorter way of saying ‘‘transgender’‘.
So then we got to trans*, the famous era of the asterisk. This was supposed to drop transvestites but include non-binary identities. The transgender community considers ‘’transgender’’ to be an umbrella term that includes everyone who doesn’t identify with their gender assigned at birth, i.e. anyone who is not ‘’cisgender’’. So therefore, every ‘’non-binary’’ person is transgender but not every transgender person is non-binary. Of course they can never keep the story straight so sometimes you will hear ‘’trans and nb peeps’’ or something, so the writer must have thought that non-binary people are not transgender per definition. There was almost some backlash from the transmedicalist side, who considers only ‘’binary trans people’’ to be valid and thinks ‘’non-binary’’ people are just ‘’transtrenders’’. The general consensus among the ‘’anti-transmed’’ side is that non-binary people are even more oppressed than the binary trans people, considering non-binary people are not only oppressed for being not cisgender but also for not fitting the gender binary, whereas binary trans people are only oppressed for the first reason mentioned.
But then some transmeds reasoned that non-binary identities could be valid but only if neuroscience would prove that non-binary people are neurologically neither gender i.e. have a ‘’gender neutral’’ brain. The logical outcome of that reasoning would be that non-binary people will always suffer from gender dysphoria no matter what their body looks like considering no body can have no sex characteristics at all. This would make them more oppressed than the binary trans people, considering they can at least successfully relieve their gender dysphoria through transitioning to the other sex completely (if science ever were to perfect SRS).
Of course the normies didn’t want to touch this discourse with a ten foot pool so then we got to the super vague term ‘’gender minorities’’ which pleases everyone. The anti-transmed crowd will assume it includes all transgender people meaning also non-binary people. The transmed crowd will assume it includes all transgender and all non-binary people with either a clinical diagnosis for gender dysphoria OR all people with an opposite sex or a gender neutral brain.
So constantly changing the language does nothing except it isolates people who want to support this movement but now can’t, because no matter which side they’d take they would be considered transphobic or enbyphobic. The constant language changes also make it impossible to write an article or social media post without accidentally coming across as offensive or creating a miscommunication. The transgender movement itself cannot even agree on a single definition for ‘’transgender’’ so I don’t understand how they could possibly expect to see support from anyone. If someone says ‘’I support transgender people’’ I would have no clue what s/he means by that. Literally no clue. It’s a meaningless phrase by itself because it’s no clear what particular ‘’side’’ they adhere to.
80 notes · View notes