About writing. And reading. And being published. Or not published. On working on being published. Tangents into the pop culture world to come. Especially about movies. And comic books. And movies from comic books.
Friday, September 30, 2022
Thursday, September 29, 2022
Visiting Ramesses (i)(pictures I like)
Wednesday, September 28, 2022
Tuesday, September 27, 2022
Monday, September 26, 2022
Sunday, September 25, 2022
Saturday, September 24, 2022
Visiting Ramesses (d)(pictures I like)
Friday, September 23, 2022
On the Subtleties of Attacking and Being Attacked
Let me start by saying that I don't really have time to write this, yet I feel compelled to do it. I'm a little resentful of that. As such (the lack of time, not the resentment), this may be a little sketchy at times. I don't know; I haven't written it yet. I'm just expressing my annoyance.
So... I have been accused of "attacking" "christians," recently. More than once.
On the one hand, I have no issue with the idea of attacking "christians;" however, I don't believe it's an accurate description of what happened. Or the relationship of what happened. No more than I would say it's ever accurate to say that someone being abused "attacked his/her abuser."
But let me step to the side of that for the moment and give a different example:
As I have mentioned before, though not in a while, I have a butt-ton of collectibles, and I have been working on selling them off for a while via eBay. Not a great place to do that, but the best option available (sort of like U-haul (and I may have a post about them coming up, too)). It just so happens that this week I listed a quite expensive card to the site. Not terribly long after listing it, someone messaged me and began haranguing me about my chosen price point, long rambling incohesive messages. Three of them, in fact. I, of course, responded, but I did it in a very cohesive manner, responding to each "point" he made by number. Then he accused me of attacking him.
Basically, because I used actual sentences, addressed each of his issues separately, and, honestly, because I made sense, he felt threatened. Because I had a smarter, better worded argument. In short, I used facts when what he had come at me with was an emotional response to the fact that he wants my card and can't afford it.
For some reason, facts seem to threaten people and make them feel attacked.
But the dude came into my space and went after me. He initiated the conflict.
But I "attacked him."
And this is what dealing with "christians" is often like.
You say a thing that is a fact, like:
The United States was not founded as a "christian" nation nor were most of the founding fathers "christians." In fact, the biggest movers among them, the ones everyone thinks of when you start talking "founding fathers," none of them were "christians." They were deists. By definition, they did not believe in the divinity of Jesus. He was just some dude with delusions of grandeur, which is true. In fact, many of the founding fathers frequently criticized "christianity." As Thomas Paine did with the following quote:
The study of theology, as it stands in Christian churches, is the study of nothing.; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authorities; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and admits of no conclusion.
For posting that, I was accused of "attacking 'christians.'"
Was I making a point? Yes.
Did I go into anyone else's space to make that point? No.
I made the point in -my- space, on my "wall."
So did I "attack" anyone? Or any peoples? No.
Did I clearly state an actual fact? Group of facts, actually. Yes.
If someone else reads that fact and feels threatened by a fact, is that my fault? No, not really.
There's really two things going on here:
The first is that if someone is coming into your space and initiating something, you're not the one doing the attacking.
Wait! Here's how to think of it:
You ever get punched on the playground as a kid and hit the other kid back and have them go tell on you for hitting them? Yeah, it's that.
Don't come in my space and accuse me of attacking you because of something I am doing in my space.
But here is the bigger issue, at least for me:
"christians" don't get to complain, ever, about being attacked. Not in this day and age, anyway. You can follow the Republican, i.e. "christian," shenanigans all the way back to Newt Gingrich, who is really the one who started all of the current shit we have going on in our politics, and how he, for lack of a better way of putting it, weaponized "christians" and turned them into nothing more than a political bat for the republicans. So for the last 30-40 years, "christians" have been on the attack against the rest of society. When someone fights back (confronts them with their lies and delusions), they don't get to suddenly cry out, "oh! oh! You're attacking me!"
And you also don't get to use the "good people" argument about how it's not all "christians." Republicans have revealed themselves to be evil and fascist, and the vast VAST majority of "christians" are republicans and support republicans. That makes them complicit and responsible. If you don't want to be judged by those standards, don't be a part of that group. Don't vote for republicans, and don't fucking be a "christian." Because not one of them is a Christian. [And just shut the fuck up with your "judge not lest you be judged" bullshit -- I'm just applying the objective criteria for what the term means; it's not my fault if you don't meet it.]
So am I "attacking" "christians"? Well, I don't think so. Maybe counterattacking, but it's more like a defensive maneuver. But, yeah, sure, I am gonna keep calling out the bullshit and lies and delusions that "christians" cling to. Someone needs to do it.
And, honestly, at this point, someone does need to wage a little war back against "christians." The organized church is evil. Pure and simple. I don't know that organized religion can resist without becoming evil. What else can you expect from something founded on the belief of lies and fairy tales.
I've gotten off topic.
I think liberals have been too fast to apologize and try to make nice when they have been accused of "attacking" others. Which is what we do because, mostly, we believe people should be allowed to live their lives as they see fit, and liberals have empathy whereas conservatives tend to... well, just not have any. Empathy. So we try to make it better.
But I encourage you to look at the bigger picture any time this accusation gets tossed around. Whose space did it happen in? Was anyone targeted? Where did the aggression begin?
I guess that's all I have to say about this at the moment. Normally, I would take a week or so on a piece like this so that I could go back over it and make sure I had everything in order and didn't ramble too much. But I wrote this yesterday. You're getting it pretty raw.
And by the way, the Thomas Paine quote is from his "The Age of Reason." Because it was also implied that I just made it up so that I could support my thesis about the founding fathers. Nope, didn't make it up. I do think I need to read the whole pamphlet, though. Who knows what other quotable quotes are in there?