patchoulol replied to your post: One interesting thing I’ve noticed abo…
What gets me is the paradox of thinking men and women are equally strong and capable but women have it harder than men and standards should lower. It’s not that women can’t be as strong as men, it’s just that the arguments combined make no sense.
Women need more protections for abuse because men do more damage but women are just as strong as men but when men are abused it’s not as bad because men not being allowed to deal with it is ~patriarchy~ so we’re going to deal with only women because men are discouraged from seeking help that we have the monopoly on but are not going to provide while men not dealing with it is still ~patriarchy~ and their own fault even though we’re not going to help but we’re for men too by blaming them for all that women suffer…
How their head’s don’t explode I don’t know.
How to compare something to the holocaust:
the posts that mean well and try to be inclusive and non-oppressive sometimes seem so forced. yeah, i get it, you hate it when white christian heterosexual rich able-bodied cismen without neurological disabilities slam doors, i hate that too. but if the identity of the offender is not relevant and it’s not social commentary, i’m not sure why all those qualifiers are added in the first place, except to give a complaint the veneer of penetrating sociological analysis.
and then it’s fuel to the fire for people who identify as anti-SJ, et al and ad infinitum.
"Death is a stripping away of all that is not you. The secret of life is to “die before you die” —- and find that there is no death."
- Eckhart Tolle (via moosic941)
"It is wrong to bear children out of need, wrong to use a child to alleviate loneliness, wrong to provide purpose in life by reproducing another copy of oneself. It is wrong also to seek immortality by spewing one’s germ into the future as though sperm contains your consciousness!"
- Irvin D. Yalom, When Nietzsche Wept (via blackestdespondency)
"Just because a given joy (such as reading dark fiction) is an escape mechanism doesn’t mean it’s invalidated or untrue, whatever those words may mean in this context. But the very fact that we can legitimately refer to joy as an “escape mechanism” doesn’t say much for joy."
- Thomas Ligotti (via blackestdespondency)
"I think human consciousness is a tragic misstep in evolution. We became too self aware. Nature created an aspect of Nature separated from itself, we are creatures that should not exist by natural law. We are things that labor under the illusion of having a self, this secretion of sensory experience and feeling, programmed with total assurance that we’re each somebody, when in fact everybody is nobody. I think the honorable thing for our species to do is deny our programming. Stop reproducing. Walk hand in hand into extinction. One last midnight brothers and sisters. Opting out of a raw deal."
- Rust Cohle, True Detective (via blackestdespondency)
"Why is it of such great interest to expose construction wherever it exists? According to Hacking, the interest derives from the following simple thought. If some fact belongs to a species of natural facts, then we are simply stuck with facts of that kind. However, if facts of the relevant kind are in fact social constructions, then they need not have obtained had we not wished them to obtain. Thus, exposure of social construction is potentially liberating: a kind of fact that had come to seem inevitable would have been unmasked (in Hacking’s apt term) as a contingent social development. This line of thought is overly simple in at least two respects. First, it’s not true that if something is a natural fact that we are simply stuck with it. Polio is a purely natural disease, but it could have been eradicated and almost was. The course of the Colorado River is the result of purely natural forces, but it was possible to transform it through the construction of a dam. Many species have become extinct and many others are expected to become so. Second, consider a case—like that of money—in which it is true that had we chosen not to construct it, it would not have existed. This does suggest that, if we wished, we could make it the case that there ceases to be money in the future (although it would obviously be far from easy). But we cannot undo the past. Given that it is now true that there is money, no amount of our choosing to do things differently in the future can make it the case that there never was any money."
- Paul Boghossian, Fear Of Knowledge: Against Relativism And Constructivism, P. 16 (via blackestdespondency)