canwediscuss - Tumblr blog

[canwediscuss]

You didn't really explain why he whipped people with a scourge if it wasn't punishment. You mentioned he was mad, that they had done a terrible thing. I agree with both of these and I absolutely am aware that certain sects of Christianity are much more opposed to any violence than others. I'll throw you a bone here; I'd respect if you believe that only god can mete out violence as there is arguable scriptural evidence. No violence at all is counter to your scripture so we're not going to agree on that ever. Additionally, you cannot love good without hating evil. That is a universal truth and if you can't accept that, you let evil thrive and eventually destroy you. It's not a comfortable truth but it's how the world works and if you believe God created the universe, you believe that natural law is divine law. That's as far as I can go within the confines of Christianity. I used to be Christian so I know most basic info.

The way politics has made so many Christians hateful and vindictive makes me sad. Satan has done well to enter the church using politics as a tool. Every time I see a christian mocking and belittling someone on the other side I wonder if they know they are letting the devil in.

[canwediscuss]

Defending the innocent with violence is moral. I'm not Christian but your Jesus whipped people for stealing money. What do you think he'd do to those who advocate mass child sacrifice? Isaac was never meant to die. There is a gap between those who are poorly educated and afraid and those who know exactly what they do. Pity the one and hate the other.

The way politics has made so many Christians hateful and vindictive makes me sad. Satan has done well to enter the church using politics as a tool. Every time I see a christian mocking and belittling someone on the other side I wonder if they know they are letting the devil in.

[canwediscuss]

Weaponized incompetence is not a difficult problem to deal with if you're not a cunt.

First probability: It's probably not weaponized, you're looking for things to be unhappy about. Solution: Is it really a big deal? Do you care more if the laundry is folded or if it is folded YOUR way? If it's the former, let it go. They do it different. It's not bad. It got done and you didn't have to do it. If it's the latter, do it yourself. Have them pick up another chore. Your peculiarities are not the gold standard of living in every single metric, if any, and you shouldn't demand someone do something you aren't willing to do yourself. If you are easy to please, it will be easier to put in effort to please you.

Second possibility: It's still not malicious, you haven't clearly communicated what you want, electing to imply, complain, and demand without actually showing any vulnerability or need. Solution: Learn how to ask. Show that you have wants. Good examples: "I would love to have the kitchen completely clean before the weekend." "I can't take care of 100% of the laundry anymore, I need help." "I'm stressing about the trip, will you help me pack tonight so it's off the list?" Bad examples: "The kitchen is always so dirty." "Why are you so lazy? I end up having to do your laundry every week. I'm not your maid." "You need to pack tonight. Don't leave it for tomorrow."

Third possibility: You're with someone incompetent. Maybe they're so dumb they can't breathe and solve 2+2 at the same time. Maybe they were horribly abused and have no life skills. Solution: Teach them. Or leave them. Follow all steps from previous solutions and add to them simple demonstrations of how to do something- before they do it.

Fourth possibility: It is weaponized. Solution: if you aren't going to leave them for it, get off the fence and improve the relationship. In addition to being clear, vulnerable, and not criticizing, Don't Ever Finish The Task. Seperate all tasks if you have to. If they burn breakfast, make yourself a single portion, express sympathy that they made a mistake. If they always leave soap residue on the cups, designate one cup for you that you wash yourself, let them drink out of the soapy cups. The biggest factor is that this is a childish behavior so you must treat them like a child. "Pay attention to what you want to see continue." Don't invest emotion into the misbehavior. Don't let it affect you. Let natural consequences take their toll. I once read a reddit about a woman whose husband volunteered to host Christmas, told her he'd do it himself, and then she was worried she'd be blames for his lack of preparation so she jumped in and did the whole meal anyway. Whether it was on purpose or not, she should not have handled it that way. If he was genuinely going to take care of it, she should show respect by letting him take care of it and trust by letting him make a mistake that would not affect their relationship or their physical security. Had he been weaponizing his incompetence, she fell into his trap. Being open that he did the meal would have protected her from the embarrassment she feared and he would have learned quickly and harshly that she will not be manipulated to pick up slack she communicated she was unable to handle. To maintain boundaries even better, do not agree to things unless you are prepared to follow through. Saying "I can't." Is good enough if you believe in yourself enough.

If anyone thinks they have an example of weaponized incompetence that is definitely manipulative and cannot be solved by letting them fail

[canwediscuss]

On the subject of any political activism:

Stop doing things that only make people angry if you actually care about your movement. It's just lazy and self centered. You're just trying to get attention like a toddler who just realized they're not the center of the universe but you don't have that excuse because you're not a literal baby anymore. The stupid Stonehenge thing is a perfect example. Don't know what kind of paints they used but they are 100% doing more damage than rocks that have been sitting on the ground for centuries. The activists could have and should have planned out something real that would have effected oil companies and consumers, not random historians and tourists who have little sway in the world of oil. I am not advocating breaking the law but no matter where you stand with legality, be effective not emotional. Environment activists who light forests on fire would be much more helpful to their cause, as well as having a bigger emotional impact by burning things that hurt the environment down. Stuart Semple vs Amish Kapoor is a good example of effective activism. Making incredibly cheap super black paint devalues Kapoor's protected black paint (or whatever the hell it is) and promotes the well being of those against the guy- Semple profits and other artists afford. It would have been stupid to go spray paint "kapoor is selfish and I don't like him" on the statue of David. It would not have affected either side at all.

There is the glaringly obvious question that perhaps these activists who paint historic artifacts and burn forests have an entirely different goal than what they say they do. I do believe that even if the protesters themselves did not think their activism through, whoever funded them or handed them the idea did think it through. As stupid as these various protests and the many more like them seem through the lens of the overt cause, many of them are simply cunning attacks on an entirely different covert front.

[canwediscuss]

The tradegy of this poem is that this woman's grandchildren are not upholding the traditions she loves. They are assimilating into the Corporate Branded culture of america. What is the point of diversity if it simply erases all memory, all culture? Would it not be better to live separate with the freedom to travel and visit anywhere? I am speaking idealistically here; obviously the world is far from perfect. This links in to my low opinion of Christianity- the way it erases ethnic religions. Europe is largely Christian and those who keep the old ways are to be commended. Africa has been the target for mass christianization for decades and that's tragic. China and Japan, so I understand, still have a strong following of old ways. I love Marie Kondo's books and they're so much richer for her Japanese beliefs.

What is the end goal of mass immigration? Is it to erase one culture or both? Depends on the ratios of born citizens vs immigrants I suppose. David Attenborough has an excellent quote about red ants and black ants in a jar will be peaceful until shaken. The Powers that be have been shaking our collective jar for far too long but in the end, if ants stay in the jar they die and if you gently put the jar down, the red ants and the black ants will go their seperate ways, building up their colonies to fill ecological niches that the other does not.

I love trying various ethnic foods but the ones that feed my soul are the ones that my family has made for centuries. Shouldn't I know what kind of foods I am evolutionarily predisposed to value more? Shouldn't they be my general diet?

If it is beautiful to swirl paints together, should we not take a little from the sources but leave the primary colors alone so we can have blue and red and green forever instead of dumping the bottles of blue and green into the red and having one brown color ?

[canwediscuss]

Can someone tell me why we're all about pro choice when we could just stop sleeping with men? Can someone give me a concrete reason why that is not the solution?

Replies to possible answers I've already heard:

-"What about rape?" Why are we pushing for abortion before we push for the execution of rapists? Executions will help heal individual women and society more effectively with the added benefit of not preventing future women from living.

-"What about health issues?" Obviously this doesn't apply to my suggested mass solution BUT women's bodies are designed to keep themselves alive instead of the baby if it comes down to that. If that isn't happening, there is a problem with medical care and education that should be solved before we talk about legal abortion.

-"What about straight women?" I don't think straight women exist. Unless they're Christian and shouldn't be pro abortion anyway. Women are never as strictly straight as straight men because we are evolutionarily designed to live with many many women. Polygyny is not only natural and encouraged by natural selection, it is much more enjoyable for women living in any pre industrial society.

-"It's never because the woman just wants to kill a baby!" I have evidence to the contrary I am happy to provide on request but won't unless asked because it's depressing and gross.

-"Carrying babies is a tool to oppress women!" Why would the organ fulfilling its function be oppressive? Hmm? Is it maybe that we murdered all the midwives and destroyed all knowledge on HOW to healthily carry and birth children? I am absolutely going to make a post about that later but for now I'll just say having babies SHOULD BE a healthy, happy process and if it's not then we should be giving visibility to midwives and women who understand birth instead of drowning them out for "internalized misogyny."

-"Celibacy is oppression, we're for women's choice!" One, I am not advocating for celibacy. Go be sluts. Two, abortion is dangerous and a stupid choice to be able to make just so you can enjoy a dick instead of fingers, tongues, and toys. The choice is to have a baby or not get pregnant and getting rid of consequences leads to less cautious and careful people who will believe they can do anything and choose their own consequences even when they really really can't.