I’m testing out my ability to actually write sensibly on a new to me idea. This means I can be expected to say stupid things while I try and uncover the keywords and principles that I’m overlooking.
For feminism, fat movement, unracism, and gay lesbian transgendered stuff, and atheism as a white male of Christian origin, I started at these concepts all wrong. I used some fairly racist language in middle school for example because at that time I wasn’t really considering the racial history aspect of anything. At the time I figured an insult was an insult was an insult. Also, I was honestly raised by wolves. Not an excuse to stay that way, I grew. But I grew the fastest when I knew people of different types. Mocking imaginary people of a different race is harmless until I met and began an internal journey to try to see the things I wasn’t getting from another person’s point of view.
Media is important. It’s vital to an informed society to be able to pick up a newspaper or check into a topic specific forum for relevant and tangential news. No matter who you are, your access to what’s going on to the world affects your ability to make informed decisions. And so getting that information in your hands and in my hands is a virtue barely exceeded, in my opinion, by having a stable democracy in the first place. If you don’t know you have a democracy via independent media, how do you really know? In other words, without a microscope, what’s the point in being a molecular biologist? You have to be able to see your systems to understand them.
Do I have to explain it? Okay, I will. A take charge kind of leader telling you that you gotta sit in the back is a person saying “hey, I’m driving.” Maybe Fox should go commando to avoid getting their knickers bunched up.
I have a short list of things I like to discuss online. I like discussing religion. I find it fascinating that it’s so popular and yet I reject it. I like discussing feminism and genderism because I know less about it but I think the most moral way to approach people is to let them self define what they are as much as possible. I like discussing nonmonogamy because it’s awesome to think of having more than one sexual partner, it’s scary to think about how much it hurts to feel betrayed, and it’s confusing to figure out if nonmonogamists are the underprivileged minority or if they are people privileged in other ways taking advantage of choices truly underprivileged people can’t make. In summary, I like choosing the unbeaten path, but I’m self conscious that treading the path is possible because I’m taking advantage of systemically provided status.
I’m for atheism or even privatizing belief so that it stays in our pockets most of the time, for taking gender off the table when determining what a person can do and be and what restroom they should use, I’m for choosing your own relationship structure, and against racial or sexual orientation divides. Also, I think we have to watch how we consider the disabled and the non popular body styles people and make sure we’re not contributing to an effort to make them feel unwelcome. I’m progressive, rebellious in respect to tradition in general, ethically flexible on what fidelity means, and socially inclusive. At least that’s what I’d like to think.
I found this on the NewBlackMan. But clearly you may have seen this on the Huffington Post. I think this is a great post from a unique perspective that of a former black female employee of NPR.
I read Of Atheist Tribes and then I spent some time here and there thinking about thinking about it. That’s typical both of my general approach to life and also I think this is the approach anyone should use when reading Hoffmann’s work. He’s educated. He knows what he’s talking about. And he dismisses atheism. Although, I’m pretty sure it’s safe to say he isn’t religious by average standards.
It’s not so important that Hoffman said what he said as much as now I’m thinking about atheism and atheists and how we’re coming across. Mostly he’s thoughtful is what I mean to say and this post is somewhat of a rebuttal of some of the content of his post. But mostly, it’s me saying that I still feel like I’m right to be an atheist and that I can appreciate a lot of different types of atheism outbursts in light of different circumstances.
I know that Hoffman is speaking of specific atheists. I get that. That’s one of the reasons why I still don’t know what my opinion of his post is directly. Instead of working that out, I’d like to discuss progressive atheism. That is my idea for this post that how abrasive I am is entirely based on the positions I am forced into.
How we know evolution is not disputed or How much of evolution is up for debate and how much is established
Juan Williams, mild mannered NPR correspondent, said something stupid on Fox. Then NPR laid him off. NPR fucked up. I’ve got some additional opinions about the price of silence, the respect for even public people to have private faces, and what NPR could have done better.
A lot of the internet is anonymous. We get to say whatever we like and we’re protected mostly by layers of identity swaps. Yeah, a woman from Afghanistan researching atheism might need an identity swap. Children, the under age, need to have their information protected. Anyone who would reasonably be concerned for their safety or whose views might destroy their family bonds or ruin their ability to do their jobs might want to think twice before exercising their freedom of speech because speech is not without consequences.
I don’t think being gay is anything to worry about because anything a person might attribute to being negative about gayness can be considered without regard to sexual orientation. Here, keep reading and I’ll show you.