Are you. Uh.
Are you saying that self harm and massive blood loss are. Healthier. Than being spanked by a partner in a controlled fashion because. I.
There’s.
There’s so much happening here. Do you think mentally ill people can’t fuck? Do you think doms are rapists? Do you think hitting someone is rape? DO YOU THINK CONSENSUAL SEX IS RAPE????
I don’t even know where to. To begin so just.
Listen.
Listen, okay.
Step one on the staircase of “stop trying to punish your body for being sick,” also known as “stop self harming,” is to replace high risk forms of self harm like trying to kill yourself with much lower risk ones that still provide you the sense of control, relief, or physical grounding that you are seeking.
This NECESSARY INTERIM MEASURE is what allows you to begin dealing with the extremely painful, difficult process of healing.
Also, did you just fucking say you would rather your friend RISK DEATH than do kink??????????????????????
Just.
Like.
I would rather risk death than deal with you right now, holy shit.
Hey, anon, here’s a quick guide to how to deal with being in your situation:
1) Evaluate your discomfort. Are you uncomfortable with the situation because you’re worried that your friend is being taken advantage of, or because it’s something you don’t understand or have built up an irrational sense of righteousness about? Hint: if you’d rather your friend risk extreme personal injury or death, it’s probably the latter, and you should probably just deal with that on your own.
2) If you are actually genuinely concerned about your friend, the first thing you should do is go talk to them, and let them have a say in how the situation gets handled. I mean, if you really respected their agency, you would probably not be so willing to label a situation they’re in as “definitely rape” because you have some vague idea about what they can and cannot consent to, but hey, maybe shit is really bad and you just don’t know how to deal with it. It’s possible.
3) Don’t drag your friend’s situation out in front of a bunch of strangers on the internet as a way to support your moral superiority. That’s taking advantage of them and speaking over them and it’s gross and just don’t. If you need support or advice, that’s one thing, but bringing it up as a talking point with someone you disagree with is not that.
Also notice the anon’s wording.
“my friend has her bf whip her ass”
That’s clearly someone who WANTS to be spanked, it’s not even a case of where the guy has a spanking fetish himself (which, y’know, is just as valid) but it’s clearly the woman who has the impact play kink, and her boyfriend is participating in it at her request, not the other way around. So how is it possible that he’s ‘taking advantage of her’ ?????
Also
How is impact play ‘rape’? Not that there’s anything wrong with consensual noncon play either but ????? They’re two completely different things.
Anon, do you think that throwing out a million buzzwords and hoping that one will stick is any good way to create an argument? Because it’s pretty much the opposite of that. Please lay off the swerf kool-aid and pet a cat or something.
“at least if she was cutting”
Holy shit, anon, you are a terrible friend just for thinking that.
I want people to look at this and examine this. Because of out of all the miserable fuckery in that post (such as equating consensual sex-acts with rape, but let’s face it, that’s just standard radfem modus operandi) the absolutely chilling part is that anon outright admits they would see their friend do permanent damage to themselves and put their life in danger, purely because the boyfriend wouldn’t be ~*~getting off~*~ on that.
I repeat – this person would rather have their friend commit undeniable self-harm, rather than engage in a relatively danger-free kink, purely because there’s even the slightest possibility that the boyfriend might be deriving pleasure from that kink (how very interesting that they make no mention of the friend’s own pleasure).
This shit is the logical end-point of the rabid demonization of deriving sexual pleasure from non-normative sexual practices (impact-play, in this case) that this place is marinating in. This is how you also end up with nuclear-level hot-takes such as ‘abuse’ (defined in an incredibly loose manner, to the point where consensual BDSM ends up falling under the umbrella) being somehow worse than murder.
Just Anti Things: actually self harm is better than participating in kink
also, what that friend does is literally a tactic used to stop self-harm practices? It’s the same as “rub an ice cube where you want to cut” so you feel something painful but don’t do serious damage
Also, from what the anon said we actually don’t even know if the bf is getting off on the spanking, or if he’s getting off on being of service to his gf and doing as she asks. There is such thing as a service top, and there is such a thing as a dominant masochist. Assuming that the boyfriend is a dom who likes inflicting pain isn’t even a conclusion one can certainly jump to (let alone the weird bullshit like “rape fantasy” because being spanked is obviously no different from being raped and oh my god the stupid, it burns us.)
Like, if he is a dom who enjoys inflicting pain on a partner who enjoys receiving pain and being submissive, that’s ok! Nothing wrong with that, if everyone’s consenting! But “woman has man beat her to satisfy her personal urges” does not require that the man be a dom or like inflicting pain. As long as he’s a man who likes doing for his partner what his partner wants him to do, it works.
Even putting aside the way anon is acting like cutting is better than impact play – they’re putting the focus entirely on the boyfriend being aroused by it. It’s not about the friend, or being worried about the friend, even if they think it is. It’s about someone finding the “wrong” thing arousing or appealing. It’s about the idea that this boyfriend is inherently an untrustworthy, abusive rapist because he enjoys consensually beating his girlfriend.
It’s like people who say that nasty fiction is just as bad as reality, because bad people are getting off on it. It’s not about the negative impact, it’s about the positive impact on people who are seen as undeserving. People who like bad things don’t deserve happiness or orgasms. If you go by that logic, it makes sense to equate consensual kink to abuse, or underage fanart to child rape: the end result, a bad person getting pleasure, is the same, which makes them equally bad.
This is fucked up beyond all reason.
However, it pretty much distills the mindset behind a whole bunch of other really awful stuff: it’s the philosophy that it’s better to deny solace to someone who needs it than to give satisfaction to someone who “doesn’t deserve it”.
This is the same mindset that has people putting up drug tests and cuts off certain foods for food stamps– because what do they care if a thousand kids go hungry so long as one person doesn’t use food stamp to eat steak while they feed their drug habit?
The same mindset has people put obscene barriers on those seeking abortions– because what do they care if the person seeking abortion is a victim of abuse, or if the pregnancy could kill the patient, so long as abortions are impossible for one irresponsible nymphomaniac?
The same mindset has people put barriers on seeking gender-affirming surgery– because what do they care about the lives and safety among trans people, so long as that one “bathroom predator” is denied?
This is why there’s such a big pushback against actually effective drug treatment programs and needle exchanges, etc, because they don’t care about the lives they could be saving– they care about that one junkie who would just take advantage of these programs to keep getting high.
And the thing is? That One Person that they’re trying to catch? They don’t have to actually exist. In fact, a lot of times they absolutely do not (like the “bathroom predator” and the “irresponsible nymphomaniac”).
That One Person is a worst-case scenario built up around their own fears and anxieties and then projected onto somebody they don’t like, the way a rape fantasy was projected onto the boyfriend in the original post. And that only really serves to justify why they can continue to hate this person that they don’t like, because that person could potentially be That One Person that they’re so afraid of.
It’s fucked up.
It’s really fucked up.
Tag: authoritarianism
Is there a conservative group text chain?
It’s wild to see how fast Republican talking points get assimilated. I’ve already seen hundreds of comments about how “Obama tear gassed immigrants at the border too.”
Tear gas is used regularly in law enforcement and at the border. For a very long time. During the Obama administration and decades before. This is not new news.
What makes this situation unique is the use against innocent bystanders and children.
That is the issue.
Children are more likely to experience permanent health issues.
This was not some surprise happenstance. The Trump administration has been quarterbacking this entire affair. They are intimately involved and made no plan of action to account for the children they knew would be there.
Most of the time these agencies run with a fair amount of autonomy. Neither Obama nor Trump would be involved in decisions involving riot control. But Trump has been talking about this goddamn caravan for months and even sent troops down there. He doesn’t get to distance himself from this.
“But Obama gassed people at the border once a month!”
Really? Obama himself did that? Or was it an agency he had no direct involvement with? How much tear gas? What kind of danger was involved? Were there dozens of children nearby?
What was the context?
When the police used tear gas in Ferguson while there were kids in the crowd, I remember people being very upset about that too. Why are people saying liberals have never been outraged about tear gas before?
I personally don’t like the use of chemical agents as crowd control in general, but I admit it is preferable to gunning people down. But it needs to be a last resort. And getting small rocks thrown at you when you have body armor and ballistic shields does not seem like a last resort kind of situation. When innocent bystanders and children are involved, you need to consider other options.
Retreating and regrouping did not seem to be an option considered at the border. I guess they gotta be tough and stand their ground to protect an imaginary line. It’s better to tear gas some kids than move back a few hundred yards.
But the talking point is out there now. It’s in every comment section. Every tweet thread. Every YouTube video.
“Obama did it too.”
I guess that makes it okay then.
We’re going by grade school morals now.
Billy ate glue and didn’t get in trouble so I should be able to eat glue as well.
The difference is, five years ago they thought that white people were the targets
They believed this 5 years ago because it was what they always wanted to do, and they couldn’t conceive of an opposition that didn’t want to do this to them. It’s classic projection: their worldview is so dependent on oppression of marginalized people and rule by force, it’s the only society they can conceive of people wanting. The success of any effort against systemic violence and oppression frightens and enrages them. They pretend and convince themselves that it’s really a plot to marginalize them in turn, because the alternative – that everyone can enjoy the rights and privileges of a society governed with empathy and restorative justice – is so alien and abhorrent that they can’t stand it.
If someone else is on top, they can be on top again. If no one is on top, they think it’s because everyone else has failed. And if they’re on top, they think it’s because they succeeded against everyone else, and now deserve to maintain and reinforce that position to the detriment of everyone else.
Back when Trump was first pitching hissies about CNN, I was profoundly disheartened to see people on the left being like “Oh, Trump is evil, but CNN really is kinda shit, all the same.”
My dudes. My peeps. My brethren and sistren and nbren.
If you’re not with CNN now you are wrong. Horrifyingly, terribly wrong.
Defending the press is not about assuming every outlet will get everything right, or slant the way you want it to.
Defending the press is about making sure enough outlets survive that you can notice slants that you don’t like or don’t find convincing, and still be able to find something else.
Like 93% of the self-contradictory behavior of fandom antis clicks into place when you realize the majority of them are victims of right wing authoritarian training from birth
“someone said my noncon pedophilic ship was disgusting so clearly they’re a right-wing authoritarian :(”
I mean. Claiming that everyone who disagrees with you must be a sexual pervert is pretty much the most right wing authoritarian propaganda tactic there is. (Right-wing means ‘traditionalist’, not ‘American Republican’, by the way). But when I said ‘victims of right wing authoritarian training’, I’m saying that many of y’all are the kids of these creeps, and expecting you to completely abandon the thinking patterns you were trained in from youth the instant you stopped sharing their political beliefs is kind of absurd.
I speak from experience, by the way: my parents are right wing authoritarians too. And it took me a long, LONG time to stop using the same shame tactics, self-serving judgmental thinking, and dogmatic behavior even though I rejected their worldview – like, 26 years or so.
The problem isn’t your feelings on explicit CSA* in fiction: it’s your insistence on judging everyone else’s feelings on it according to your own worldview, which is, of course, the only correct view. (As a person trained to think like an authoritarian, you may not have considered any other possibility.)
It’s my hope that you won’t stay trapped in such a graceless mindset your whole life. (Partially because it tends to lead to voting in power-hungry despots just because their politics supposedly agree with yours, but also because it’s just such a miserable, narrow way to live.)
*not that ‘pedophilia’ is being used in a genuine way by the person I’m replying to, but if it was, it would be csa.
As a child of the Satanic Panic era, can confirm. Fiction-obsessed puritanical moral authoritarians is the same.
an observation
Within a generation of genuinely good reform that makes things better for particular groups, there will be a backlash from people who weren’t yet alive way back when and don’t remember what it was like in the bad old days, but are sure something about the reform is a scam.
This is true for major things, like vaccines, or women being able to have their own bank accounts, paying jobs, maternity leave, and the vote. And it’s just as true for smaller things like a fan-run Archive of Our Own (so named, after Virginia Wolfe’s famous feminist essay, for a reason)
that makes fanfiction available for free with a mandate to legally protect it as long as it conforms to the Terms of Service.The current backlash against the OTW I’m seeing all over my dash is completely unsurprising, because we’re at that point in the organisation’s life. There are now fans who weren’t in fandom yet when we made the OTW and AO3, and who have no idea what fandom used to be like.
The fact the backlash is riddled with right wing vocab and lack-of-fact-checking laziness is just as predictable. I doubt most of it is even said with genuine worry – it’s just concern trolling. It’s another face of the usual efforts by the right to suppress the work of women, queers, and other minorities. And yes, I’m being serious. Both right wing trolls and Russian trolls infiltrated fandom conversations, where they overlapped with social justice movements, during the USA’s 2016 election, and they haven’t gone anywhere. Fandom is a nice juicy target for that kind of propaganda effort, because we tend to skew left and be full of minority-identifying people.
This anti-AO3 push is not just wank. It’s propaganda, and it’s attempting to sow discord, distract from important issues, and do harm.
Thanks to those of you who have taken the time to point out those posts are rubbish.
Note: The OTW is a charity, run by fans for fans. I was one of the original Board members, but I’m not currently doing any work with them.
You can read more about the OTW and the AO3 for yourself here: http://www.transformativeworks.org/.
You know how fucking dumb you sound
do you have any reasonable argument at all
They don’t, that’s part of the problem with an authoritarian mindset. They aren’t coming at this by forming an argument, they’re attacking because they’ve identified an enemy.
Change is terrifying. People who are trapped in authoritarian viewpoints are generally fearful, so they tend to push back on any kind of change with anger and potential violence, whether that’s social, political, or physical violence.
The one correction to what @cupidsbower said that I’d offer is that it’s not actually witnessing the ‘bad old days’ that prevent us from engaging in this kind of behavior. There are plenty of older people who are authoritarian who lived through the that period that are still going to behave like this today.
What it did was galvanize the people who didn’t want to embrace authoritarianism by helping them understand exactly what the world looks like when we don’t have things like OTW or AO3. That’s why you’ve got a core of fandom people that were involved in those groups who, upon seeing stuff like LJ strikethrough, who learned really quickly that authoritarians will destroy everything if you give them the chance.
But everything else is spot on. Authoritarians are surging right now. We’re at a peak of corruption and inequality that we haven’t seen in a long time, which both terrifies them and emboldens them, because their response to fear is to go on the attack and elect leaders that are just as violent and ignorant as they are.
This is absolutely authoritarians attacking any and all social progress they see. In their eyes, any move away from a social hierarchy that prizes obedience and oppression is terrifying, so they’re going to attack anyone they see as the enemy to feel better about it.
Another weird and frustrating phenomenon when you get sucked into an argument with conservative types (something I usually try to avoid bothering with anymore) is that there’s this very narrow set of people they’re convinced are key figures, even “leaders” on any given topic. Talk about climate change and they bring up Al Gore. Talk about women’s rights and they bring up Anita Sarkeesian.
To this day I have NO IDEA what any of those people have ever said on those topics, and in most cases, I never even heard of them outside of conservative complaints and memes. I would never know the name Anita Sarkeesian if she wasn’t one random blogger out of thousands that an obscure niche of people went positively ballistic over. I’ve never heard of anyone accepting the existence of global warming just because non-scientist Al Gore said to.
If I tell them this they never believe it. They’re completely convinced that the beliefs they hate actually revolve around some random youtubers or B-list politicians they randomly elevated into their own bugbears and the idea that the people they fight hardest against actually have barely any influence or fame outside their own subculture seems almost impossible for them to accept.
George Soros.
I always see people saying George Soros pays people like me to protest (I wish), or buses people to vote on battleground states, some way or another he has us under our thrall.
I don’t even know who the fuck George Soros IS
I don’t even feel bothered to Google him and find out- he’s utterly irrelevant to my life. But apparently all liberals are on his payroll somehow.
I, too, never heard of George Soros before just recently.
They could make up absolutely any name in these arguments and it would have just as much meaning to me. “You’re only pro-vaccine because you’re shilling for Jiminy Ferpendoodle!!!”
I’ve heard this referred to as the central fallacy of the authoritarian mindset: It’s not that authoritarians don’t care about facts, it’s that facts aren’t real until they are confirmed by an Authority. Of course no liberal believed in Global Warming until Al Gore said so! Why would they believe it, until Someone In Charge said it? And moreover, if you can prove That Person Isn’t Really An Authority, the facts will change! See also:
- Why Creationists are obsessed with disproving Darwin – not his theory, but the man himself. As if casting doubt on Darwin-a-dude-born-in-eighteen-fucking-oh-nine-for-chrissake-’s personal beliefs will somehow completely disprove the ensuing two centuries of scientific research.
- Why various idiot politicians try to legislate away Global Climate Change, as if making laws against the ocean will stop it from rising.
I’m sure you could add on ten thousand bullet points but it’s Saturday and I don’t wanna do the research when I could be cleaning my kitchen and playing Minecraft.
You ever notice that they have a huge reliance on buzzwords? I don’t think they know who George Soros is either, but it’s a buzzword that the Authorities have given them, so they beat the hell out of it.
More buzzwords that will drive me to screaming: Family Values. Christian Values. Patriot/Patriotism. Pro-Military.
I swear, they’re using immigration control and better education as buzzwords too. They make their world small so they have to use small words to fit better.
Can you not compare exclusionists to authoritarians? You can be an inclusionist, fine, but do you know how ignorant and tone deaf it is to liken exclusionists to a dangerous political ideology with a body count in the hundreds of millions of people? For you to even make a claim to exclusionists being authoritarian for some stupid tumblr discourse is wildly disrespectful to marginalized groups who have actually suffered under the hands of authoritarian states.
I understand why you’re uncomfortable. You’ve got this idea that authoritarianism is only something that appears in totalitarian regimes that tend to target queer people like myself, so you don’t think it’s appropriate to compare exclusionists to authoritarians.
Only, I’m not presenting a tone deaf or ignorant analysis of the problem. The problem is actually that you don’t understand what authoritarianism is, and in your ignorance you send me a message like this.
Authoritarianism isn’t a political ideology, it’s a cognitive flaw that exists in all human cultures. Here’s a quick primer, pulled from similar things I’ve already said on my blog before:
Authoritarians are people who create a social power structure that requires obedience to a core authority, usually an individual but sometimes an ideology. They exhibit the following three behaviors as a core part of what they do.
- Establish an in-group and then police it. People don’t just have to look like you, they also have to talk like you. If they don’t, they’re the enemy and you have to push them into the out-group.
- Identify an out-group. These people are the enemy and must be attacked to keep the community safe.
- Take your biggest, meanest, most violent person and put them in charge. They are now mom/dad and they will keep you safe.
Authoritarianism is, at its root, a cognitive flaw created by emotional immaturity. People who are emotionally immature build power structures that they think will keep them safe, and those power structures work by hurting other people. That’s why they have to imagine that they face an existential threat from people who pose no threat to them. To conservative Christians, it’s everything from leftists to Muslims. To TERFs, it’s trans women. And to exclusionists, it’s aces.
That’s why we keep pointing out that exclusionists talk like TERFs. Because they do. Because both groups are an expression of authoritarianism in the LGBTQ+ community.
Not satisfied? Neither am I, let’s go further.
Exclusionists are absolutely authoritarians. Here’s a short list of reasons why:
- They have an in-group and they police it. To exclusionists, there is only the LGBT community. Anyone among those groups that don’t agree with exclusionists are policed in an attempt to exclude them from the community.
- They have an out-group that they attack. Asexual people. And before that, bisexual people and trans people.
- Their in-group doesn’t match reality. Asexual people have been a recognized part of the LGBTQ+ community for more than 50 years, but since that pokes a hole in exclusionism, they need to lie about it and claim that asexuality was a trend started by David Jay when he founded AVEN.
- People in the LGBTQ+ community have been calling themselves queer for longer than I’ve been alive, but to exclusionists queer is a slur that must never be said by anyone.
- Their out-group directly attacks people in the LGBTQ+ community in an effort to invalidate them, erase them, and deny them resources that they have every right to access.
- Their fear of the out-group is entirely imaginary. Aces don’t take anything away from the LGBTQ+ community. Diversity is not a threat. Exclusionists just think it is because they’re authoritarians and authoritarians are always fearful and xenophobic.
This is not rocket science. Exclusionists argue that aces are a threat to the community because they take resources away from us. When we demonstrate how faulty that reasoning is, they fall back to claiming that aces aren’t actually oppressed. When we demonstrate how faulty and immoral that is, they fall back to their actual position.
Aces are the enemy, so exclusionists are going to label them as cishets and drive them out of the community for the sake of everyone’s safety.
And when we point out how that last argument isn’t just faulty, but also immoral and disgusting? Their true colors show and slurs and insults abound. Scratch an exclusionist and a hateful bigot bleeds.Your position is ignorant and tone deaf. You don’t understand what authoritarianism is and I find it personally insulting that you’d try to shame me into silence because you’re either too ignorant of the facts or too uncomfortable to acknowledge them.
Exclusionists are authoritarians. Learn to deal with it.
This is a good post.
I just want to add this:
When establishing an ‘out-group’ to harass and blame for all their problems, authoritarians frequently – maybe always – aim at people of similar or less social power than themselves, but claim that the designated out-group is more powerful than them.
This paints the authoritarian group as an underdog fighting a great foe, which encourages internal solidarity. But the bonus is doubled because the ‘great foe’ is actually fairly easy to gain political or legislative victories over; pretending this is nigh-impossible makes every victory a huge morale booster.
Examples:
- TWERFs target trans women as the outgroup, but claim they are really fighting cis men.
- SWERFs target sex workers as the outgroup, but claim they are fighting sex traffickers/the porn industry.
- Exclusionists target ace people as the outgroup, but claim they are really fighting straight, cis people.
- White nationalists target non-white refugees as the outgroup (& many others), but claim they are really fighting invaders who want to commit white genocide.
Gatekeepers need excuses for gatekeeping, after all, or they’re out of a job. But it’s not fun to gatekeep when you’re facing real enemies that might hurt you, so keeping busy with the ones you can kick around easily is a common pastime.
China Declared Islam a Contagious Disease — and Quarantined 1 Million Muslims
“Reeducation Camps”
Should sound familiar.
Smh
Because I know a lot of people wanna claim anything critical of China to be Western propaganda:
https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/comment/2018/7/9/the-uighur-muslim-crisis-is-worse-than-you-think
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/05/xinjiang-uyghur-china-repression-surveillance-islamophobia
https://chinadigitaltimes.net/2018/07/xinjiang-surveillance-model-expands-to-non-uyghur-muslims/
Note that this isn’t just about Islam: the Uyghurs are an ethnic minority in a Han-dominated state and the government does not have a great track record with non-Han minorities
The UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination condemned the detentions/camps/etc. a couple days ago. Obviously it won’t do any good (see Myanmar), but that should signal that it’s not a regional/proxy matter: people who know, know it’s (pre-)genocidal.
China Declared Islam a Contagious Disease — and Quarantined 1 Million Muslims
Another weird and frustrating phenomenon when you get sucked into an argument with conservative types (something I usually try to avoid bothering with anymore) is that there’s this very narrow set of people they’re convinced are key figures, even “leaders” on any given topic. Talk about climate change and they bring up Al Gore. Talk about women’s rights and they bring up Anita Sarkeesian.
To this day I have NO IDEA what any of those people have ever said on those topics, and in most cases, I never even heard of them outside of conservative complaints and memes. I would never know the name Anita Sarkeesian if she wasn’t one random blogger out of thousands that an obscure niche of people went positively ballistic over. I’ve never heard of anyone accepting the existence of global warming just because non-scientist Al Gore said to.
If I tell them this they never believe it. They’re completely convinced that the beliefs they hate actually revolve around some random youtubers or B-list politicians they randomly elevated into their own bugbears and the idea that the people they fight hardest against actually have barely any influence or fame outside their own subculture seems almost impossible for them to accept.
George Soros.
I always see people saying George Soros pays people like me to protest (I wish), or buses people to vote on battleground states, some way or another he has us under our thrall.
I don’t even know who the fuck George Soros IS
I don’t even feel bothered to Google him and find out- he’s utterly irrelevant to my life. But apparently all liberals are on his payroll somehow.
I, too, never heard of George Soros before just recently.
They could make up absolutely any name in these arguments and it would have just as much meaning to me. “You’re only pro-vaccine because you’re shilling for Jiminy Ferpendoodle!!!”
I’ve heard this referred to as the central fallacy of the authoritarian mindset: It’s not that authoritarians don’t care about facts, it’s that facts aren’t real until they are confirmed by an Authority. Of course no liberal believed in Global Warming until Al Gore said so! Why would they believe it, until Someone In Charge said it? And moreover, if you can prove That Person Isn’t Really An Authority, the facts will change! See also:
- Why Creationists are obsessed with disproving Darwin – not his theory, but the man himself. As if casting doubt on Darwin-a-dude-born-in-eighteen-fucking-oh-nine-for-chrissake-’s personal beliefs will somehow completely disprove the ensuing two centuries of scientific research.
- Why various idiot politicians try to legislate away Global Climate Change, as if making laws against the ocean will stop it from rising.
I’m sure you could add on ten thousand bullet points but it’s Saturday and I don’t wanna do the research when I could be cleaning my kitchen and playing Minecraft.
Holy. Shit.
That is the best explanation of the belief about Authority Figures that I’ve ever seen. And suddenly so many things make sense.
No wonder conservatives complain about “revisionist history.” Under a mindset like this, if you point out that Thomas Jefferson was kind of an asshole because of the way he treated Sally Hemings, suddenly the Declaration Of Independence is worthless.
This is also why they’re so willing to take politicians at their word regardless of what they do.
Urocyon's Jaunts 2.0 
You must be logged in to post a comment.