#****this post is about disability - please do not turn it into a religion debate***** | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

nobodysdaydreams · 5 months ago

Note

this is so random, but if you have the time, could you talk about what drew you to christianity (or why stick with it through life)? I've been doing some research into religions to see what i vibe with and I saw one post from you about forgiveness for your enemies but i hold grudges until i die. i could never imagine forgiving some people

Thank you so much for this question, and for wording it so nicely and respectfully! I very much appreciate that and would be happy to answer your question (although Christianity is not the main focus of my blog, and I'm sure there are others who would be better equipped to answer your question, I shall endeavor to do my very best). Sorry in advance for any typos, if something is unclear/doesn’t make sense, please ask!

Really quick in case someone is new here: if you want to follow me and don’t like Christianity, you can block the tag “#christianity” (pin post goes into detail). Thanks!

This isn't really something I can answer quickly and easily, but if I had to point to what drew me to the faith at a young age, and why Christianity/Catholicism has become such a central part of my life today as opposed to a more cultural identity, it's the teachings and life of Jesus and the lives of the saints who modeled their lives after him. The care, compassion, and love Jesus had for everyone around him was beautiful to me, as were the how diverse and uniquely beautiful the lives of the saints were, men and women who lived in different countries, existed different time periods, spoke different languages, were different races/ethnicities, and had different vocations, jobs, disabilities, families, and experiences, all united across history by their common desire to serve God and serve others. Some of them were illiterate. Some were born in poverty, some were born rich. Some of them were devoted to God since they were young, others lived pretty selfish and at times horrifically sinful lives before they decided to turn it around. They weren't perfect people. They're not holy because they never messed up. They're holy because at some point they look at the teachings of Jesus and said to themselves "that's how I'm going to live my life".

You mentioned my post on forgiving your enemies, which for reference, I assume that this is the post in question. This post is based on Christian teaching, and I'm certainly not the only one to post about it. Another one of my favorite posts on the topic is this one: "there are going to be a shocking number of people that you don’t like in heaven, and you will rejoice at their presence when the time comes". These posts are based in the teachings of Jesus, which included things like "Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you" and loving his enemies even as they were actively killing and torturing him. Now, at first, this sounds weird. Why would you want someone you don't like in heaven? Why would you love someone even when they are such a terrible person?

I started typing out my answer, and it turned into a bit of a rant, but since you're looking into religions, I thought it might be helpful. Sorry it’s insanely long. There’s a part at the end with a larger heading you can skip to if you want.

This is a complicated answer, and I debated about the best way to answer it, but I first wanted to clarify what my views are on humanity before I dive into forgiveness. I think is important, because I have learned that there are two, strangely very different and opposing ideas about the Christian view of humanity that exist in secular culture, neither of which fully or sometimes even partially represent what I believe in as a Christian or what my faith teaches. Please note I'm not specifically calling any one creator out with this as I have seen literally dozens of posts like both of these examples and as there are thousands of denominations of Christianity, I'm not discounting the fact that there may in fact be Christians who teach or believe this. This is merely an explanation of my faith and what I believe so that when I talk about my own views, people understand what I mean.

I came across the first secular view of the Christian view of humanity when I saw a couple posts that at first, I fully thought were written by a Christian, because they were like "Don't you ever just look around at people helping and caring for each other and become mesmerized by the inherent beauty and goodness of humanity? Our capacity to help each other, our willingness to care, our resolve to do better? We are beautiful, these examples that I've listed are beautiful." and I'm like heck yeah op, and immediately thinking of Catholic teaching about us made in the image of God and all that and Jesus' teaching about how whatever good we do for each other we do for God himself and I've seen so many similar posts from my Catholic and Christian mutuals that this post seems to blend right in. But then when I go to reblog it, op has a disclaimer that's like "Xtians need to get the **** off my post! Why do y'all keep coming here? You don't believe that every human is a beautiful and wonderful person, you believe that every human is a terrible sinner and should go to hell forever and you want to make innocent children and people with OCD feel bad and shame people into doing whatever you want and I don't get why every time I make a post like this, y'all keep coming here pretending to believe what I believe. You don't. **** off!"

And look, no hate to any of these OPs. If you do not want me interacting with your blog or your posts, I will not. And not every OP was that aggressive about it, most just respectfully asked Christians not to interact or reblog. But I won't lie, and I'm not trying to be mean. It was kind of funny to read a post that's like "Humans are so beautiful and kind I love us" and then when someone reblogs it like "Thanks OP, I agree!" the immediate response is "No, you don't. Go **** yourself". I'm so sorry, it has the same vibe as this lovely post, and I apologize for my terrible sense of humor, I just find it funny.

So while I obviously don't agree with any of the aforementioned OP's views on Christianity, I wasn't gonna try to debate them on it because I respect people's boundaries and there are a lot of better things I have to do with my time than debating strangers on the internet because when has that ever changed anyone's mind especially when people are emotional or upset? But anyway, I assumed that this was how most of the secular world viewed Christianity's view of humanity until I stumble across some very different kind of posts that were like this:

"As someone who has been abused and bullied my whole life, I get so disheartened by humanity. So many people are honestly so awful and don’t deserve anything. I hate seeing those stupid posts from Xtians about how all humans are made in the image of God and inherently good and deserve redemption and love and compassion, like really? Even murderers? Even abusers? Sorry, but no. They're not inherently good. Most people are genuinely so terrible, most people only think about themselves, and some people don’t deserve forgiveness because they’re objectively horrible and don't deserve a pass for what they did." And versions of these posts that were just lamenting the brokenness of humanity and not targeting the Christian view in general often had added disclaimers about how they did not want Christians (and in some cases, pro-humanity secularists too) on the their post.

I will say that as a Christian, it was really interested to read views that are so strongly against both humanity's goodness and brokenness and how they believe these are represented in a Christian worldview. I've also seen posts that attribute the differences in these views to denominations of Christianity: "The urge to experience the Catholic Guilt that we're all terrible sinners who can never make up for what we've done vs. urge to embrace the Protestant God loves everyone superiority complex and avoidance of all moral responsibilities" and such similar posts, but I don't think those differences between denominations are as strong as people make them out to be. If anyone is not interested reading this full post, the short version is, as I'm sure you've guessed, a more nuanced view of these extremes that explains why Christians love (or should love) our enemies, but exactly why and how Christianity holds this more nuanced view is important to understand.

Interesting, according to polls I've seen, most general tumblr users seem to agree with the idea that humanity is inherently good rather than inherently evil, which as a Christian, I think is a good thing. I believe we are all made in the image of God, I believe that we are loved beyond imagining, and I believe that every person on this Earth deserves love and respect. But of course, that brings us to the approximately 10% of tumblr users (an estimate from the polls I've stumbled across, may or may not be accurate) who are not down with the whole positive view of humanity. I've read some pro-humanity (though secular) responses to these "humanity is bad" posts, which assert that while the people that hurt OP (the person insisting humans are inherently bad and don’t deserve redemption) are bad people, and deserving of condemnation, this doesn't reflect humanity as a whole. To an extent, I agree with that view, but a some point along the line, you start to run into a problem. The problem being the human tendency to make mistakes and do bad things that can seriously hurt people and then we run into the dilemma of determining what is a forgivable mistake and what is a cancellable and unforgiveable transgression. How do you decide who gets sorted into the majority "good" humanity group and the minority "bad" humanity group? Okay, there are probably some things most of us agree on, we probably agree murder is very very bad and a serious crime, and we probably agree everyone makes mistakes sometimes and other situations are more nuanced, so some things are forgivable and understandable, but how do you decide where the line is for what is forgivable and what isn't when most people out there probably disagree with you on at least one thing?

At this point you might be thinking, "Well Bods, if you don't believe that humanity is inherently awful or that humans are perfect or good all the time, then what exactly do you believe? Isn't Christianity about recognizing your own horribleness and hating yourself unless you love God? If not, then what is it?" Again, the short answer is a more nuanced view, but since you wanted to know more about my stand on forgiveness and I get a lot of compliments on my fics about how I portray redemption and character flaws, and characters' journeys towards redemption, and all of that comes directly from my Christian beliefs, I thought I'd do more of a deep dive.

The first point I'd like to make is in regards to the idea that "Catholic Guilt" (and I'll get more into what I mean by that later), or the idea that humility, self-insight, and recognizing our own flaws is inherently a bad thing. It's not, in fact, it's necessary for us to make positive change and to grow, and it can be toxic for us and for others when we aren't willing to recognize or at least be open to our own shortcomings. And the idea that guilt and recognizing our own failings can be a good thing is not an exclusively Catholic or even exclusively Christian idea. We all have seen those TikToks that are like "POV the worst person you know just got back from therapy and concluded that everyone else is the problem and they are the one being gaslighted and they are a victim who deserves better🤦🏻‍♀️" and to some extent, I think we all know someone like this (or maybe even have been someone like this). And it’s so frustrating sometimes, because you just want to grab them (or your past self) by the shoulders and be like "No! It's not other people! Not all the time! YOU are the problem sometimes! YOU are the reason your life is falling apart! And aren't you tired? Aren't you tired of being miserable, aren't you tired of losing friends, aren't you tired of being such a hateful person all the time? Don't you want to get better? Don't you want to be happy? Why are you resisting your chance to get better? Why would you ever run from that?" and when it comes to the posts about the concept of "Catholic guilt" or "Christian guilt" or even "guilt" in general being an inherently bad thing, it's hard for me to agree that its an entirely toxic concept, because there are so many times when you see remorseless criminals or even just bullies who don't care about the people they insult or when it comes to the fic I write, horrible fictional characters you wish were real just so you can scream in their face "No! You SHOULD feel bad about this. You hurt someone, you shouldn't feel remorseless, its weird that you don't on some level feel upset, because you should! You should care about other people. You should care! You should feel bad!" And it's clear why we want these people (and characters in regards to writing) to feel bad. Because guilt and recognition of error is often the first step to grace, the first step towards being a better person than you were before. You want them to feel bad because you want to save them and you want the evil they are doing to stop. Guilt is the first step to achieving both those things. If you aren't able to have the humility and self-insight to recognize your capacity to hurt others, act selfishly, and do bad things sometimes, then you don't have any hope of getting better. And that's only going to led to more hurt and more pain, for you and for others.

Before I continue with this point, I'm sure there are secularists reading this who are like "well, I would agree with you, but that's not what I think or mean when I say "Catholic Guilt" at all!" so I did want to first mention something I see a lot of posts in reference to "Catholic guilt" talking about OCD and other mental health issues and how the concept of guilt, especially religious guilt, can be damaging to those with mental health issues. As someone who has struggled with a lot of mental health issues and has personally known many devout and practicing Catholics with diagnosed OCD (and has mutuals with OCD, hi guys), when I say "guilt is a gift from God" and "guilt is a good thing", I want to make this point VERY clear: Guilt is a gift not because it drives you to despair, desperation, self-hatred, and self-harm/self-destruction, but because it drives you to joy, love, repentance, and being a better person. Guilt should be the first step towards grace, and that includes recognizing your great potential for goodness, for love, and for replacing all of the bad stuff you used to do with good things instead. It might start out as a painful experience, but ultimately, should fill you with joy and gratitude that you were able to recognize where you went wrong so that you can go on to live a better life. Anything that encourages self-hate and self-harm is not a gift from God or anyone else. That's not what "Catholic Guilt" is or should be. The scripture is clear that despairing in our own weakness or flaws is not the answer. The Church is clear that despairing in our own weakness or flaws is not the answer. I could honestly make a whole separate post on religion and mental health issues, because there are so many times when I will hear people (therapists unfortunately) look at cases like this and say "oh the whole problem here is this person's terrible religion and culture. If they would only leave it and recognize how objectively bad it is, then they wouldn't be so miserable and everything would be all better" like...no. The problem is that they have a obvious and serious mental health issue that you should be diagnosing and treating rather than advising them to get rid of their only support systems, and this is a huge part of the reason why people often like to go to therapists from their own religion and culture, because they are able to recognize what is actually considered "normal" and what isn't. There are so many other examples and I could do a separate post on this topic alone, but I think you get the point.

But then of course, even after establishing a proper definition of guilt and its utility, we come to the other extreme of "okay, if Christianity really does believe in the inherent God created goodness of everyone despite the fact that we as humans often mess up a lot, then how do you explain the fact that a lot of horrible people do a lot of really bad things, sometimes in the name of Christianity? And then this supposedly loving God just expects us to forgive them like they didn't do anything wrong?" And this is where the whole nuance of the "Catholic Guilt" thing comes in. Because while I still get weird looks from people when I say that guilt is a gift from God, I still stand by that belief because the whole point of feeling guilty about something is that it motivates you to change your behavior and be a better person. That is a good thing. Because if all these horrible people truly felt bad about what they did, and truly repented, you would see clear and obvious changes in their behavior. The Bible (and Church) are clear that Christian forgiveness is not, nor has ever been, a "get-out-of-jail" free card (though sadly many people, even devoutly religious people, treat it that way and that's something that I and many priests, nuns, and devoutly religious Christians I know are greatly ashamed of). Christian forgiveness and repentance, at its core, it's a call to conversation and a call to make amends, often more amends than society says you "need to" and my Christian followers will know that biblical examples of this clearly illustrate exactly what that means and what it looks like (I can give you some in detail if you want, but this rant is already kinda long). If abusers, murderers, the worst of the worst etc. were really sorry and remorseful about what they did and the harm their behaviors caused, they would spend the rest of their lives working to make up for it, no matter what the sacrifice. In some cases, they might even go to court and beg a judge to put them in jail for life just to ensure that they never hurt anyone else again, no matter how much money, power, or influence they have that could get them out of consequences or how much of a "promising athlete" or whatever they were because protecting innocent people is far more important than whatever they had going for them. Repentance might also involve accepting that you're never going to see your family again, because you've hurt them too much and need to respect their decision to establish boundaries to put themselves in a healthy place. It might involve not only paying back the money you stole from someone, but also paying them back with excessive interest because of the financial hardships they had to endure after their loss. That's the level of repentance we're talking about here. In fact, that last one is an example straight from scripture. And it's beautiful to see it.

So whenever someone asks me "Oh as a Christian, you believe EVERYONE can go to heaven? You hope that EVERYONE gets to heaven? Even [X] group of people? Disgusting." my reply is "Well, technically, yes, I do hope for that, but unfortunately, I don't think most people in [X] group are going to heaven and that makes me very sad." The reason being because if most of the people in this group (murderers, abusers, you can fill in the blank) were sorry about what they did, and were actually interested in accepting God's mercy and judgment and all that comes with it, they'd be acting very differently and how much better for us all and for them if they did chose that option. But it's not really surprising to me that they don't, because you need to get pretty far from God, humanity, self-awareness, compassion, and humility to even consider doing most of those things in the first place. So it shouldn't be shocking that those with the greatest need for repentance and mercy have the least desire for it. That doesn't mean it's impossible or never happens. God's grace is strong enough to reach everyone and anyone, and what a beautiful thing it is when it reaches the worst of us and this person who was hurting so many people is not only not doing those bad things anymore, but devoting their lives and themselves to making sure it never happens again and that they are fully held responsible for what they did. Turning something or someone so terrible into a force for good and positive change in the world is one of my favorite parts of my religion and one of the reasons I love so many saints, but sadly, it's so rare to see it.

Unfortunately, I think part of the reason for the rarity is the dichotomy between Christians and secularists alike who believe that Christian forgiveness or non-religious concepts of self-acceptance, self-love, and self-kindness are "get-out-of-jail" free cards and the cancel culture that says that anyone who makes a mistake deserves to be immediately and publicly shamed and held accountable for the harm they've caused with no hope of redemption. It's this weird blend of practicing and preaching kindness and forgiveness towards yourself and to people in general, but not tolerating anything from other people or extending that same grace towards others, and I think this worldview can be just as toxic as having self-shame and self-hatred while tolerating abuse and negativity from others. And Christians are not the only ones who see the problem with this either, secularists on tumblr have spoken a lot about this too, and I've seen a lot of posts about internet culture and how everyone is afraid of posting the wrong thing because "what if you accidently offend someone?" "what if you get cancelled?" and lots of people have made a really good point that if we as a society aren't willing to forgive people for their past mistakes and give people that grace, than how does society have any hope of getting better? And I think they hit the nail on the head with that one, fantastic take. Believing that people can change and be better and each have a unique, invaluable contribution to make to this world is part of my faith. Again, it doesn't diminish the reality of what they've done, the damage they caused, or the serious and real need to make amends, but it does give them hope, a future, and an opportunity to no only stop doing something bad, but start doing something good. I'll also add that part of forgiving others comes with having the self-insight and humility to recognize that sometimes we mess up too, and no one is immune to propaganda, bad days, brainwashing, thoughtless comments, the victim to victimizer pipeline, impulsive decisions, and being wrong, not even you. That doesn't mean you should hate yourself or despair when you mess up, you should be forgiving and kind to yourself, just like you're forgiving and kind to others, but you should also recognize the reality of what happened and work earnestly and sincerely to make amends. It takes practice, and I'm not saying its easy, but I certainly think its worth it. And for my Christian mutuals who are reading this post and saying to themselves, "Wait a minute, Bods. "be forgiving and kind to yourself, just as you're forgiving and kind to others?" that sounds a lot like "Love your neighbor as yourself", part of Christ's greatest commandment?" Yes. Yes it does. Because it is. And it all comes back around to that in the end doesn't it?

And this all brings us to our conclusion and one of my favorite posts on this whole website and something I think about a lot, which is the post about how "there are going to be a shocking number of people that you don’t like in heaven, and you will rejoice at their presence when the time comes". I love that post. It sums it up the Christian concept of heaven so nicely. I know it probably sounds really weird to a secular audience to rejoice at seeing someone in heaven that you don't like, but to a Christian, it’s a wonderful thing. Because it means that whatever was inside them that cause them to hurt others is completely gone now. They are different now, and in extreme cases, quite possibly to the point where you don't even recognize them anymore and it feels like meeting them for the first time. I would say the joy you'd feel at seeing them again in heaven comes from the fact that they aren't hurting people anymore and are a good or better person now, but that doesn't even fully capture the magnitude of what's happening, because the concept of sin and evil in Christianity is different than the concept of sin and evil in some other faiths and secular society. Evil is not considered an equal opposite to good. Good is more powerful in Christianity, and evil is merely a destruction, perversion of, or absence of that good. In the Christian worldview, choosing evil > good doesn't mean you "switched sides/went to the dark side", it means that you rejected goodness and destroyed part of yourself, and in those extreme cases of hatred and callousness I mentioned, maybe even destroyed most of yourself. And now, in heaven, glory be to God, you're back! You didn't just change teams, you came back, we came back. This is who we were always supposed to be, it might not look anything like what we thought it would, it rarely does, and you were probably wrong about some things, I was probably wrong about some things too, maybe a lot of things, but thank goodness we're here now, thank goodness we made it, thank goodness I get the incredible privilege of being able to experience the beautiful and wonderful person that is you. I know to those who aren't Christian and are reading this post out of interest, that sounds like super weird idea of heaven, and I get that. Forgiveness and acceptance of others is not a fun or easy thing to do. Forget spending the rest of eternity with someone who greatly hurt people, I think most of us would be disappointed at the idea of getting to heaven only to discover we'd be sharing and spending our blissful eternity with that classmate we can't stand or our annoying coworker. And they didn't even do anything bad, we just really don't like that guy. But that's what heaven is. That's what salvation is. It's love for everyone eternally. We will see those we don't like on Earth in heaven and rejoice at their presence just as those who didn't like us on Earth will rejoice at our presence. I know that when we picture those we've hurt and those that hurt us, or even those we just don't get along with, it's difficult to understand how this could ever be possible, because we don't experience that in our lives very often, and we as finite beings can't fully conceptualize what an infinity in heaven will look like, at least not in this life, and that's part of what faith is. All we can really do is trust God and that whatever that's going to look like is going to be more wonderful and healing than anything imaginable.

Okay, so now that I've explained more about the Christian worldview (sorry it's so long, I like to ramble unfortunately 😭) your question about grudges:

My explanation of the Christian worldview only explains why we forgive our enemies and want them in heaven and rejoice at them in heaven. But obviously this world isn't heaven, and not all our enemies are exactly eager to accept that they might be the problem or embrace the gospel of love and repentance. At least some of mine aren't, I'm not sure about the rest of you. So what do we do? Why does God want us to let go of grudges and forgive people who aren't interested in repentance? Are we supposed to just tolerate the abuse?

The answer is that loving someone and recognizing your own dignity and right to be safe and healthy are not two mutually exclusive things. I have cut family members out of my life because they were toxic and if I needed to, I'd do it again. This isn't because I hate them. I love them. I want to see them in heaven someday. I want to spend eternity with them in a world where it is healthy and beneficial to be around them. But it's just not healthy for me to have a relationship with them right now. That doesn't mean I'll ever stop loving or praying for them. And I recognize that's a lot easier to say than to put into practice. Healthy boundaries are one thing, but forgiveness is another. And Christian teachings on forgiveness are pretty extreme, and seem strangely paradoxical at first. It holds to the seriousness and gravity of the damage sin does while insisting that nothing and no one is beyond hope. It's righteous anger and lamentation at how much we've used sin and hatred to hurt each other and it's joy and ecstasy at how God's love and mercy trumps all that. In the bible, one of Jesus' disciples asks him how much he should forgive someone if they keep offending him, and asks if he should forgive him 7 times. Jesus' response is not 7 times, but 70 x 7, or for as long as you want the Lord your God to forgive you. That's a tall order. I get that. Even when you establish healthy boundaries, the hurt, the anger, the pain, the injustice, it's all still there.

But the thing about that hurt and anger and bitterness is, for as much as we didn't ask for it, it doesn't do us any good. The quote “Resentment is like drinking poison and waiting for the other person to die.” has been attributed to so many people, but regardless of who said it first, it makes an important point. Stewing in bitterness and resentment won't hurt the person that hurt us. It only turns us into a bitter and resentful person. I do want to add to this post in case any other curious secularists are reading this that you don't just need to be a Christian to believe that letting go of grudges is good for you. I study psychology, and I understand people, regardless of their faith or lack of faith background don't like the nuance on this topic, so let me break it down. No, your intrusive thoughts related to mental illness, trauma, and disability are not what Jesus was talking about here, those are not sins, but although your intrusive thoughts and emotions might not be your fault, this does not mean that you have zero responsibility or accountability for any thought or emotion you might have. See, the brain is strange and complicated thing. It controls you, and yet, you control it just as much. If you want to be a loving and kind person, the best way to do so is by thinking kind thoughts and doing kind things for others. Even if you don't want to be doing this things or don't like doing it, your brain will eventually start to adjust, assuming that this is what you enjoy and who you are because you keep doing kind things and thinking positively about others. Basically, your brain thinks to itself “well I must enjoy volunteering, I do it all the time” and “I must not hate her that much if I go out of my way to be kind to her anyway”. You might not be able to chose what others do to you, or your immediate thoughts and emotions about it. But you can chose what content you spend your time consuming and what you consciously choose to think about and your brain will adjust accordingly. You can chose to think good things even when its hard. If you are righteously or justifiably angry about what happened to you, you can use that energy to protect others from what happened to you instead of seeking violent revenge on those that wronged you and consciously ruminating on how much you hate them and imagining bad things to happening to them (note again the difference between justice and revenge and the difference between intentionally and joyfully dreaming of vengeance and violence vs. intrusive thoughts you didn't ask for).

Of course, this is all much easier said than done. I won’t pretend that it’s not. But the good news is, we don't have to forgive alone. God knows it's hard for us. He's there every step of the way. Throughout the bible, Jesus talks about how when you sin against someone else, you sin against God (and vis versa, when you do something good for others, you do it for God, etc.). He knows exactly how much it hurt you. That's never lost on him. He also knows how much you've hurt others, but also how much you've done for others. He knows everything about you, and he loves you so much he died and went to hell and back for you (and would do it again if he had to). He also says that the redeemed versions of our enemies are worth fighting for and that he doesn't want to see anyone destroy themselves with bitterness and resentment or hurt themselves anymore than they've already been hurt. That doesn't mean letting our enemies into their lives. It also doesn't mean our enemies will ever choose accept God's mercy, because they might not. And it doesn't have to happen overnight or be easy. Speaking from experience, it rarely happens overnight or is ever easy. It's often a step by step daily commitment to thinking positive thoughts and turning our hurt and anger at someone into love for others. It's what we're called to do as Christians, and it's part of our path to sainthood.

And while it might be a very unpopular opinion, when it comes to my enemies, even the really bad ones, I would be very happy to see them in heaven. Yes, I’d be happy because if we didn't forgive people and allow for that grace, they wouldn't have hope of getting better, and yes, I’d be happy because of the great goodness that comes from them when they chose repentance, but also I’d be happy to see them in heaven because I'm so curious to see what they look like without all the sin. I want to meet the person God died for and would die for again and again if that’s what it took to get you back. I want to see sin that destroys us defeated and I want to see all of you in heaven. I think you guys are really cool.

Anyway, sorry it’s so long, but that’s my answer. I’m not a theologian or anything, but I hope this was satisfactory. Thanks for stopping by!

#Bods Answers #Thanks for the ask #I hope this answer satisfies. Sorry it’s so long #Christianity #Catholic #Catholicism #Long post #I’m sorry

7 notes · View notes

missouris-googlehistory · 5 years ago

Text

Really didn't want to make this post

//If you are going to post about the heart beat bill please add a hashtag #pro-choice or #abortion or something because it's literally EVERYWHERE and you may be suprised but yes abortion triggers me, and many other people. I'll add my two cents so hopefully no one slaughters me or comes after me. I am not a survivor of abortion, luckily my parents refused the doctors suggestion when they found I would be born disabled. They didn't know how severe it may be but they said no. There are also many people who have survived abortions who may have guilt about it or find it hard to discuss that their parents didn't want them. I am pro-life for many reasons. I will list them and give evidence where I can. I will also explain why abortion is a triggering topic for me.

• Science now agrees with many religions that life starts at conception. https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

• It is not her body. Not even a zygote IS a woman's body. It is IN a woman's body. They have two different sets of DNA. There own limbs and organs. A fertalized egg has part of another human beings DNA in it along with the mothers. It's a separate entity.

• Abortion and the abortion debate is sexist. Do fathers not get a say in an abortion? Do we not care about what they think? OK yes the heart beat bill is a little stupid because most woman don't even know they're pregnant yet. But that doesn't mean all men are that dumb. Many may even want to keep the child but the mother doesn't and decides to abort it. Just because they don't have a uterus doesn't mean they don't have compassion and empathy. I wouldn't turn down an able-bodied Allie just because they are fully physically healthy. They have an important role as well.

• Abortion may not be racist but it sure is ableist! https://medium.com/@RKallemWhitman/buzzfeed-cut-the-ableist-crap-c9c216513881 this is the most triggering part for me tbh. It's basically saying "Oh? They're disabled? Get rid of it!" I deserve a chance at life just like everyone else. My quality of life is not less, neither is an autistic kids, or down syndrome or any other mental or physical disability. This is why abortion is a triggering topic to me. When I hear or see aggressive posts about pro-choice I feel like I'm a burden. I feel like I'm not welcome in the world, it makes me feel worthless. It has made me self harm in the past. It has made me suicidal.

• Adoption! Give the child as much hope as physically possible to live and have a good life! Many people say pro-lifers do nothing for orphans but that's not true. We donate large amounts of food, clothing, and money. We adopt these children. I understand raising a disabled child may be difficult but someone out there may be willing to brave the task you're not ready for. And that's OK! Saying an adopted child won't have a good life is just rude. I know so many adopted kids who have loving homes and families.

• C-sections! Rape is HORRIBLE thing. And one of my few exceptions. But I also believe c-sections may be able to help young girls who physically can not give birth. I'm also hoping one day science will be able to keep really premature babies alive outside the uterus somehow to grow and such.

• Having to give 'it' painkillers. If you have to give 'it' painkillers before an abortion. How is that different from murder??? It feels pain?? Hello?? Also salin pills literally burn the thing alive. There have people who have survived and been disabled because they survived that kind of abortion!! A third-trimester abortion is definitely no for me because it feels pain.

• A lot of women feel guilt afterwards, I don't want that for anyone. It's horrible. Also it's sexist against women because it makes us believe "Oh you're not capable of doing this." When there are SO MANY strong women out there. Many woman say the child doesn't remind them of their rapist they bring joy to their life. Maybe 10 years ago you couldn't pay rent but now your son gets small jobs here and there to help. You just never know.

• My personal exceptions, rape/incest, if it's really early on, if the child could be born with such severe disability that the quality of life would be almost non-existent. If there is a high chance of the mother dying or the child dying and it's too risky. I believe in case by case abortions. They should be far less than they are. I understand the medical necessity at times I'm not stupid.

One last thing. I'm also against abortion because of the polarization it brings to the nation. Many people think all pro-lifers are old, cis, straight, white, Christian men. When I know many atheists, many women, many people of color, gay people, trans people who are pro-life! Do they not get a voice because their opinion is different?

You can unfollow me if you want I won't stop you from your opinion. But please hear mine.

- sincerely a asexual, biromantic, disabled, woman ❤

#pro life #anti abortion

8 notes · View notes

butterflyinthewell · 7 years ago

Text

Don’t support Autism Speaks in April. They’re a bad, damaging charity.

Every April, the autistic community rises up in protest of Autism Speaks, the juggernaut autism charity known worldwide.

Autism Speaks refuses to listen to autistic voices, dehumanizes autistic people and centers caregivers and parents instead of #actuallyautistic people. Their negative, stigmatizing rhetoric still affects autistic people to this day. As an autistic person, I implore you to listen to the autistic community about Autism Speaks. Don’t fall for the blue. Please go #REDInstead.

Here is a bunch of links that explain why Autism Speaks is a bad charity that should never be trusted until autistic voices are 100% listened to, centered and favored over neurotypicals.

* * * WARNING: Some links include abuse, violence, murder and ABA * * *

http://goldenheartedrose.tumblr.com/post/89338501188/autism-speaks-masterpost-new-updated-62014 (collection of links)

https://medium.com/@KirstenSchultz/a-roundup-of-posts-against- autism-speaks-5dbf7f8cfcc6 (collection of links)

https://kpagination.wordpress.com/autism-resources/autism- acceptance-month-resources/ (collection of links)

https://whyiboycottautismspeaks.wordpress.com/ (collection of blog posts)

What's wrong with Autism Speaks? Before you donate, please take a moment to look into this organization and what it’s awareness and fundraising is really doing for the people it claims to support.

Autism Speaks no longer seeking a cure, and this autistic person couldn't care less. Not only does it sound like a lot of nice words couched in nice language that don’t actually mean a thing, but it’s very parent focused (still) and doesn’t actually seem to help actual autistics.

Four years. Every time a parent whose clothing is covered by puzzle pieces or autism “awareness” slogans tells me I don’t count because I can speak, even while I’m stuttering and turning red and unable to continue and they think they’ve won the fight…my heart breaks.

Autism Speaks diminishes lived experience. Autism Speaks is not a representation of autistic voices, they are a sham, intended to steal money from scared parents.

Why I am against Autism Speaks. If you are FOR humanity, you will be AGAINST Autism Speaks.

Who is your awareness really for? Autism is not about you. We don't want your awareness. We don't want your damn silent selfies. If you really want to do something for autistic people, first stop posting your kid's business all over the internet. Then listen to us. Stop doing this mommy centered 'awareness' crap that stigmatizes us.

Be aware of this. Quackery awareness month, even, but of course no one will come out and call a spade an effing shovel because autistic people don't count in this society. That's right, it's a f*ing shovel.

I'm aware of your hate. Everywhere I look you remind me that you hate us. You want us gone. A word for the history books.

Is Autism Speaks a hate group? According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) a hate group’s “primary purpose is to promote animosity, hostility, and malice against persons belonging to a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin which differs from that of the members of the organization”.

Light it up blue isn't autism awareness, it's advertising for Autism Speaks. But every time I start thinking Autism Speaks is starting down a good path they do something that reminds me: they are not my family’s autism organization. They don’t represent my values. They don’t represent my family.

Why Autism Speaks is dangerous. Autism Speaks, frankly, has the most ironic name of any nonprofit I’ve ever heard of, because they do everything EXCEPT let autistic people speak. Their entire campaign is founded around how awful it is to be a parent of an autistic child, without paying a single thought to how it feels to be an autistic child.

Be Aware! My kids do not need people to be aware of Autism, especially when what that actually means is “beware” of autism. My kids need people to accept them, just as they are, and recognise that they are valuable and valued human beings who do not need to be changed. My kids need people to be willing to support them when the environment is causing them problems. My kids need people to see the value in diversity and look at them as people with some thing to offer, not something to be tolerated.

Autism Speaks: Hate speech and eugenics. I’m pretty pro- choice, if you don’t want a baby, don’t have one, but I take a huge issue with encouraging the termination of intended pregnancies on the grounds that you’ll get someone with a neurotype you didn’t want. Wiping out a group of people by stopping them from being born is called genocide.

Autism Speaks fails the community. In one of its controversial videos, "I Am Autism," we hear autism promise to bankrupt you, destroy your marriage and friendships and eliminate all hope from your life. Autism Speaks turns autistic people into villains and parents of autistic people the heroes — or worse — the victims.

Autism Speaks does not deserve your support. Autism Speaks’ mission statement goes on to claim that they will “find the missing pieces of the puzzle,” showing that “they don’t really value autistic people as fully human people. We are puzzles and we are missing pieces of ourselves, and we must become neurotypical in order to be respected by this group.”

Why we hijacked the #AutismSpeaks10 hashtag. Here’s the thing about the “autism advocacy” organization known as Autism Speaks – it doesn’t advocate for people with autism. In fact, if it’s said to advocate for anyone, it would be for overwrought parents of autistic children. In fact, they’ve promoted a video sympathizing with a mother who says – with her autistic daughter in the room – that she considered driving herself and her daughter off the George Washington bridge because of the enormous burden of it all.

Do not light it up blue. Did you know that autistic people are here all year long? Their struggles and their triumphs don’t begin and end in the month of April. How are you being more aware and accepting of autistic people and their families all year?

An autistic speaks about Autism Speaks. So that is why I'm posting this blog entry today. It's to get the word out from the other side of the autism debate, the one that doesn't get all the media attention. It's in the hope that someone, anyone, who participated in the walk might start to have second thoughts about it. And most of all, it is with the hope that others like myself can get the support we need to live in a sometimes frustrating society, not a cure that is forced on us without our acceptance.

Real autism. Autism Speaks was created by Bob and Suzanne Wright in 2005 as an organization that advocates for Autism. Over the years Autism Speaks has created a severe amount of controversy around their practices and policies in regards to how they promote Autism to the general public.

"Imagine, if you will, that an organization existed by the name of "Womanhood Speaks," which, on the surface, appeared to be in support of women's rights. Now imagine that the governing body of this organization only included members of the male gender, with not one female represented in its ranks. Imagine that its actual aim was to create a registry of all females and force them to become more masculine, completely disregarding the fact that a majority of females were perfectly content with their womanhood and even found it to be advantageous. Imagine that members of its leadership appeared on popular TV programs talking about the epidemic of womanhood and how it needed to be eradicated. Doesn't sound too appealing, does it?"

-- https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2007/5/19/336513/-

[Neurodiversity isn’t about pretending that autism, other developmental disabilities and psychiatric disabilities are all sunshine and rainbows. It’s about believing that we should be able to live our lives on our own terms and that our community should continue to exist, and doing whatever we can to make sure that happens. --Shain M. Neumeier, Esq.]

#actuallyautistic #social justice #neurodiversity #disability rights #disability activism #long post #tw abortion #tw pregnancy #tw abuse #tw murder #tw aba

202 notes · View notes

sleepymarmot · 6 years ago

Text

Twilight Mirage liveblog 5/5 (finale & post-mortem)

64-67

Found a new shortcut to my heart: announcing your finale is going to be a mashup of The Quiet Year and Firebrands

Why is it surpising that the Qui Err Coalition allies with the Waking Cadent? That was my first thought when Iota was making her speech! The Qui Err thinks the humans should leave, the Cadent thinks the humans should leave, sounds pretty compatible to me.

What's the logic of “When Crystal Palace arrives, we will blow up this system”? It's not a bomb! But it will be in danger if a bomb goes off right next to it!

Oh no, Ali is doing the classic “shoot yourself in the foot on purpose” move

I don't get how Grand Magnificent got promoted from “got paid once to retire” to “is trusted to do actual missions for Advent”

Why the hell does Gig want to kill Ballad

The players keep underestimating how “horny” the scenes in Firebrands are and Austin is increasingly exasperated

I would like to thank Jack from the bottom of my heart for choosing dance as a framing for making contact with Grand. Also I completely lost it at “there are talons on my shoulder”

I must have missed something, what's so bad about the Splice and Our Profit that everyone's so excited to fuck them over? The Mirage is made a renewable resource, right, so the Splice isn't a drain on anything?

The Echo-Ballad scene is so frustrating that I can't even feel appropriately bad about it! Come on Echo, just help Grand go back to Advent as an undercover spy, it doesn't have to be a competition this time!

I still don't understand Independence II… How do you send your new very conspicous and recognizable design to friends in rival factions without blowing your cover

The timeline here is really weird… Echo rescues Grand and brings Ballad with them, Ballad calls off his people, Grand sends out his new mech design… And a week later, Grand's still on Qui Err territory having a friendly lunch with its leader? If going back is still an option, how is that going to look without making Advent seem like total idiots? Ah, it's only a day after? Okay…

I'm very glad the Volition problem was solved so peacefully!

5 minutes later: “Quire could die!” How about no??! I was so busy preparing to mourn Volition. I am completely unprepared to lose Quire just like that.

Memorious was alive and also an axiom worm this whole time? Wut

Fuck, do we need another opportunity to kill off Ballad?! This list of NPCs is making me very nervous, I don't want any of them to die… As soon as they said “tactical skirmish” I started screaming internally and likely won't stop until it is over… Wow, Ali, that was cold Oh no, Keith is really on a mission to murder Ballad

Grand how could you bring a bomb to Christmas dinner what the hell RIP bird leader / avian boss, he had an amazing unique voice and, in my head, a really cool cartoony design

Thanks for 9.5 hours of fun. Now I guess it's time for the 4 hour long brutal and heartbreaking final boss encounter

Full offence Gig, but I wouldn't log off even the real internet for lawn games

Signet fucking saved everyone single-handedly, twice. Two biggest threats. Incredible. What is the rest of the game even about

Seriously, do the players know something about Advent that I don't?! Otherwise please stop calling your cheesy space mafia “nazis”

I've been waiting for Even and Cascabel stealing time together since the beginning of the finale! For 11 hours! Finally! This finale is in dire need of more romance content I like that everyone immediately starting dragging all Bioware games at once

I don't see how a secular virtual reality is more of a “weird cult” than an augmented reality in which people maintain an actual religion worshipping the union of human and synthetic life for 30k years. Can we not do the hypocrisy again please. Why is it okay for the Divine Fleet to build their own take on utopia but when the NEH does it's portrayed as a threat and all characters treat it with suspicion and contempt

OK all these ideological debates are fine and dandy but people really should ask more practical questions like “you don't have to rush, why don't you just go back to the previous eco-friendly methods we have previously agreed upon” Glad Fourteen won, but ideologically, as you can guess from this entire liveblog, I'm with Our Profit

I don't like how Tender started with the intention of attacking Our Profit / the Splice but very much like how it somehow turned into her offering to help them and solve everyone's problems in one move

Grand Magnificent building a pseudo-Divine to blind the Crystal Palace with the power of bullshit is the ideal happy ending for him

Good on everyone for doing the best possible things with the Divines, except for the DFS for managing to do every possible bad thing simultaneously!!! My dislike of that faction is vindicated but at what cost Oh god it's even worse

“Echo Reverie, who knew well both the value and the cost of violence, and who dreamt powerfully of peace” is such a beautiful and concise summary of their character arc God I just love how organically Echo and Gig's arcs led them to help a decolonized society lead independent, peaceful and joyful lives

A new Fleet with a healthier relationship between the Divines and everyone else is nice, thank you Signet

Oh my god, the ending titles are Gig interviewing everyone, that's so sweet!!! Really the perfect sentence to end this campaign with.

(I feel like a jerk mentioning it but… Whenever there's music overlayed with the voice track, it's almost always too loud and I have to strain my ears to hear the words… It's been like that since season one. Am I really the only one with this problem?!)

Whew! Hard to believe this long, long listening experience is over. I have mixed feelings: sometimes it was exciting or inspiring, sometimes it was fun but I felt I could as well be doing something else, sometimes I listened to the outro and thought “this music and the montage for it in my head right now make me feel so much more than the episode I just heard”, and sometimes the ideology of the narrative or characters'/players' opinions and actions clashed enough with my worldview enough to poison the entire experience. What's new is that, unlike the previous arcs, I didn't have an urge to shake my friends and yell at them “you absolutely must listen to this!” and that made me sad. But that might be just me getting used to this show and taking its good features for granted.

Post-mortem

Oh god, the production of the final sequence sounds like absolute nightmare

Thanks for validating me with the speech about the Fleet's lack of engagement with its “original sin”, Austin

Thanks, Janine, I hate it! This religion didn't need to get any creepier!

Yes tell us how many ears Tender has! I need to know!! Tender's fursona is the Russian food cat?! Amazing The livestream practically starts with googling animal pictures. Classic

Honestly Echo's disability was barely noticeable to me as a listener… There wasn't a lot of visible difference between the way they accessed the mesh and other PCs did, and after the nanites did activate, I don't think it was ever brought up again…

Yeah I'm genuinely upset that Tender and Fourteen didn't get together, by the way! Or at least have an overt romantic storyline! Give me that sweet sweet PC/PC romance my soul is starving Like I get what Jack is saying about the value of depicting friendship and normally I'd be on his side but 😭 😭 😭 On the other hand I didn't know Echo/Grand was a thing (And now feel kind of bitter it got more official endorsement than my ship that has more canonical foundation) This universe is actually about Austin inventing NPCs who have crushes on Keith's characters and then Keith pointedly avoiding the subject How could anyone forget about Tender's wild fangirling over Waltz lmfao

Austin calmly talking of all these things I screamed about above like “yeah that's what I intended”. Like on the one hand I'm glad, but on the other why couldn't you make it less frustrating to listen to

The rehabilitation theme is another thing that is present thematically but was not discussed on screen enough imo. One thing my mind kept returning to re: Contrition's Figure was the question of forgiveness for serious crime, personal boundaries and principles, and the policy of not disclosing the inmates' crimes. I imagine a survivor of rape or abuse wouldn't want to share space with someone who did the same kind of crime that hurt them. Even if they wouldn't be made to interact, of course, but what if that person believes those kind of people don't deserve rehabilitation at all? What if they reject that system on principle? You often encounter seemingly serious statements like “abusers/rapists/nazis should die”, especially lately. I've heard that about “fascists” (which is a separate issue) in this very campaign. Where do people with these opinions go in a utopia? Do they not exist? Do people who commit horrific crimes not exist either? Because I was listening to that arc and thinking “What if one of those undisclosed crimes was csa or serial murder or something like that? Would I be expected to shake hands and play chess with that criminal? How could I rehabilitate, heal, re-socialize, learn to trust in a space where anyone I meet could be Shrodinger's rapist?” And that leads to the bigger question of what a utopia is. Is it a better society – or better human nature? If latter (and Austin said so) – then to what extent? Because the theoretical people who are so much more advanced than us that they are, en masse, incapable of extreme cruelty, must also differ from our generation with their entire psychology. And a psychology so different would be unimaginable, unplayable, and would not provide necessary dramatic conflict or antagonistic characters. Which is why most alien characters in most stories, including this one, are just humans in silly costumes or prosthetics.

Oh dear god, that must be the heaviest personal story yet… But I understand better what Declan's Corrective was about.

Oh I've been definitely thinking about static utopias vs utopias of process while listening! When I wrote at some point that they made me stop and consider what a utopia is, it was one of the things I meant.

Yeah, sure, in our world the Splice would be terrible because of the existing power dynamics. But that's a Counter/weight story! Twilight Mirage and the Divine Fleet have been about the technologies and ideas that could have been, or were, used to terrible ends, but miraculously, we got to see them used in good faith with genuinely good intentions and good results. Divines have been all kinds of threats over the ages, and yet the Fleet managed to build a community around them that was a small paradise for 30,000 years. So why do the NEH and the Splice not get the same benefit of the doubt? Why is narrative not treating them with the same respect? Why are they always a threat? Why isn't there a major, likeable NPC whose life was enriched by the Splice to the extent that it is central to their identity, who could be our advocate for that point of view? Why are some powerful and potentially infinitely dangerous things, like Divines or religion itself, shown as more valid than others? And don't tell me that our player characters are from the Fleet – none of them are Qui Err either, and yet by the end it is a respected, lovingly portrayed player faction.

Oh, and also, speaking of the Splice's dangers, and what would have made it dangerous in the real world – one of the things that bothered me about it was that these dangers weren't actually described and addressed in the show properly! Probably at least in part because this techology is so magical it's hard to codify how it works. If it gives an indefinite amount of time, how do you sync up all these infinite amounts of timelines? Whenever anyone logs in to visit Tender, how do they know if it's been a day for her, like in the real world, or a hundred years? (Oh and by the way, I waited in vain for the explanation for these strange duplicities and possible time anomalies; what was going on with Ache and Acre?) If opposing the Splice and the NEH were about solving specific problems with the Splice, I would be all for that!

But yeah, I really do appreciate “processes that self-regulate and address their own issues”, how the story and specifically the finale were about the work of building a better world. I like the finale especially because it shows the social processes more clearly; TM's lack of a faction game and its focus on “bigger picture” was palpable, so I was happy to see again that aspect of the show I think is really good and unique. At first I thought it was anticlimactic that the main threats of the finale were solved so easily, early, and pretty much single-handedly. And, indeed, in a tv show that would have looked pretty strange (and require some rewriting, because with how it went down, Signet should have been the sole protagonist from the start lol). But on the other hand, it gave a lot of space and focus to what the whole story has been about: building a better society and future. Not just saving it from an external threat and drawing the curtain on that – but making sure the world we won is the one we want to live in. Preserve the environment! Decolonize the land! Shut off the tyrannical prophecy machine! And that's a good thing, and from my perspective very characteristic of this show. Before it, I didn't even know there were games about building and preserving communities and addressing civil issues! For years I thought “Well, stories of adventure are fun, but they don't address the real issues”, but turns out, there are people and systems that at least try to combine both. And that's a thought I can find comfort in, even if the specific choices of this campaign make me frustrated sometimes.

“I also tried to move away from violence this season and ended up making an arms manufacturer”

Somehow the end of the post-mortem feels sadder and more final than the end of the show proper

#friends at the table #blah blah blah

1 note · View note

maxihealth · 6 years ago

Text

Come work with me at PHE

If you are interested in working with me at Precision Health Economics, please apple here. A job description is below.

Associate Research Scientist – Health Policy

Location: Los Angeles, California US

Job Id: 1357

Los Angeles, California US

Work From Home Available:No

Exempt,Regular Full-time

Division:Precision Value & Health

Business Unit:Precision Health Economics

Who we are: Precision Health Economics has a global reputation for delivering results that have strategic and practical applications, generating academic publications in the world’s top research journals, and leading public debates in prestigious, closely watched forums.

With offices in Austin, Boston, Los Angeles and Oakland, we continue to experience rapid growth and have assembled a team of professionals from around the globe with expertise across multiple disciplines; academics, economists, epidemiologists, medical anthropologists, public health and public policy experts and more—all passionate about producing high quality research for the latest health care medicines and technologies.

We are excited to invite bright, motivated Research Scientists to consider a career with us. Dedicated team members who enjoy a challenge, thrive in the details and flourish in dynamic environments are highly likely to be successful.

Join us to deliver research that focuses on attributes of value that is meaningful to all healthcare constituencies, which leads policymakers and pharmaceutical, biologic and healthcare technology companies worldwide turn to PHE to shape strategy, inform key healthcare decisions, and produce effective changes in public policy through insightful research.

Do you consider yourself a highly organized, self-starter with a real passion for projects involving innovative health economic concepts? Are you passionate about conducting high quality research and are willing to put in the hard work? Do you love to work with real-world data to answer pivotal research questions in the health care industry? Are you a clear and confident communicator among teammates and in front of clients? If you’re a born problem-solver and enjoy when no day is the same – keep reading. Your dream job is waiting.

What you can expect day-to-day:

Collaborating across a broad portfolio of sophisticated health economic and health policy research projects.

Performing a wide range of activities including: literature reviews; regression analysis; preparing content for reports and manuscripts, slide decks and meeting notes; quality assurance/review; and other activities.

Qualifications: Minimum required:

Master’s degree

1-year experience conducing health economic research

Preferred:

Degree concentration in economics, health services research, epidemiology, biostatistics, public policy, health policy, or public health or related

Experience with R, Stata or SAS

Experience conducting data analysis, especially analysis to identify causal inference

Precision Medicine Group is an Equal Opportunity Employer. Employment decisions are made without regard to race, color, age, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, disability, veteran status or other characteristics protected by law. © 2018 Precision Medicine Group, LLC

Come work with me at PHE posted first on https://carilloncitydental.blogspot.com

0 notes

realselfblog · 6 years ago

Text

Come work with me at PHE

If you are interested in working with me at Precision Health Economics, please apple here. A job description is below.

Associate Research Scientist – Health Policy

Location: Los Angeles, California US

Job Id: 1357

Los Angeles, California US

Work From Home Available:No

Exempt,Regular Full-time

Division:Precision Value & Health

Business Unit:Precision Health Economics

What you can expect day-to-day:

Collaborating across a broad portfolio of sophisticated health economic and health policy research projects.

Qualifications: Minimum required:

Master’s degree

1-year experience conducing health economic research

Preferred:

Degree concentration in economics, health services research, epidemiology, biostatistics, public policy, health policy, or public health or related

Experience with R, Stata or SAS

Experience conducting data analysis, especially analysis to identify causal inference

Come work with me at PHE posted first on http://dentistfortworth.blogspot.com

0 notes

distantwitness · 7 years ago

Text

Repost: #KillAllMen Is Feminist Liberation Through Satire

This blog is purely about my research into visual depictions of human suffering, but because I am being personally attacked on a medium I use professionally I feel it is appropriate to share here.

Please distribute as you see fit and nolite te bastardes carborundorum.

Originally posted at Laywers, Guns and Money.

Trolls aren't just after me, they're after your rhetorical tools in speech against oppression

Days after my twelve-hour suspension from Twitter ended, the trolls have returned under the same absurdly bad faith humanitarianism.

The first lockout was annoying but it ended before I knew it. An evening spent on a romantic date with my very male husband made the time pass easier.

This time I'm locked out for seven days, and when I'm a writer who depends on Twitter for contacts and research this is no minor inconvenience. My husband and I can't eat out at nice French restaurants for seven straight days, Groupons have some pretty strict limits.

On March 19th I lampooned a Federalist article, penned for the purposes of the gun control debate, proclaiming that all men are born violent. Well if that's so, then the only logical response for women, the disproportionate victims of men's violence, have no choice but to #killallmen.

To interpret this joke of mine, which is quite clearly a joke, as an endorsement or threat of violence is stupid. Even more stupid is that the joke was banned even as it floated above an article with quotes like, "A man’s nature cannot be repressed...Men were made for the intentional use of force and power." Whatever your thoughts on Punch RockGroin's parenting advice, the response of "#killallmen" cannot be seen as a serious and to do so is either profoundly stupid or profoundly dishonest. In order for "#killallmen" to be a credible threat, it has to have some basis in reality. Spoiler alert: It does not.

An Unreal Hashtag

I'm not going to sit here and tell you that #killallmen, at least in my use, is just a joke. It is satire, and as I am currently teaching satire in world literature to British secondary students, let me tell you satire is deadly serious. To be a satirist is to identify oppression and to take power back by upending the dominant narrative. I can't claim to be the inventor of #KillAllMen, but allow me to explain the way I use it. Feminists and their male allies are constantly calling out abusive behaviours of men to stop, whether it be street harassment, unequal pay, dictating reproductive rights, etc. The response of anti-feminists is frequently to say that we are trying to end masculinity, that we are weakening men (see the Federalist article cited above), that all our desired policies will be the death of men.

Turn of the century anti-suffragette postcard and their imagined women's violence against men. Plus ca change...

A Men's Right's Activist created meme featuring feminist video games critic Anita Sarkeesian.

It is ridiculous. So what does a satirist do when faced with an oppressive ideology that is in fact quite ridiculous? We mirror it. We say, "Yes, Kill All Men!" Because it is an absolutely ludicrous conclusion to draw and the louder you say it the stupider it sounds. We are echoing stupidity not to imitate it, but to mock it and strip it bare.

I don't particularly care if anyone thinks I'm good at satire, all that is subjective. What I do care about are readers interpreting the function of my satire correctly. You don't have to laugh but you also don't have to phone up Interpol. Just imagine I'm a white male stand up with a beer belly on Comedy Central and change the channel when I'm not funny.

The "Threat" Against Men

What makes "#KillAllMen" a non-serious threat where "#KillAllJews" or "#KillAllGays" are much more dangerous? The simple answer is reality. We know that there are armed groups out there with the intent, opportunity, and historical record of killing Jews and gay people. Nothing similar exists when it comes to male identity. Is there an organized armed group out there with the stated mission of eradicating all XY genes?

No.

There are however armed groups, like the military in Myanmar and the government in Chechnya, who wish to wipe men from specific ethnicities or even sexual orientation off the face of this Earth. But these threats are typically carried out by other men, and there is plenty of evidence to show the perpetrators are happy to carry on killing and assaulting the women associated with the victimized men. Women from the same group as those engaging in the violence may even show support, but they do not do as individual actors autonomous from the men running the murder show. Are men more likely to be targeted for assault simply because of their gender identity as men?

No.

Men whose physical appearance marks them as members of an out-group are absolutely uniquely targeted for violence. Black men, Latino men, Jewish men, Muslim men, gay men, men who dress in traditionally female clothing, all of them have been victims of one hate crime or another. The FBI doesn't keep statistics on the gender of the attackers in hate crimes, but individual reports of women engaging in violent physical confrontation solo against men are rare if not unheard of. Nowhere is there any evidence that men are under attack by women simply for their identity as men.

Are men more likely to be victims of domestic violence or sexualized violence? No-ish.

Men, as well as young boys, are absolutely victims of domestic violence. No serious advocate would try and tell you otherwise. Men in both heterosexual and homosexual relationships can experience physical abuse at the hands of a partner. Male children are also vulnerable to abuse from mothers and not just fathers. However, there's a difficulty in assessing whether they are more likely because of the stigma around reporting. Women are simply more likely to report intimate physical abuse.

It is my own personal opinion that men and boys have a much harder time coming to grips with physical and sexual abuse and might very well need more support in the short term. Women are absolutely guilty of abusing men with prejudice against race, religion, sexual orientation, or even disability. But there is no epidemic of women's violence against simply for being men. That is the paranoid fantasy of the Men's Rights Activist.

Comedian Donald Glover explaining the difference between telling "crazy ex-girlfriend" and "crazy-exboyfriend" stories to friends.

Even if we gathered all the data showing how men can be victims of violence with different motivating factors, women are always disproportionately more vulnerable and are therefore are in greater need of protection.

Satire Is A Power Move

The Alien was female, but Ripley certainly had to mow down a lot of men standing in her way that tried to use the Queen as a bio-weapon.

If Jonathan Swift's initially anonymous pamphlet A Modest Proposal were shared on Twitter today without the historical distance, I have no doubt one of his many enemies would be arguing Swift is actually calling for us all to #EatIrishBabies. The hashtags #RoastAllBabies #YumYumYum must clearly violate Twitter's policy against hateful conduct. No one living today could argue in good conscience that Swift was actually advocating for frying up the chubby little cheeks of infants born into poverty in order to control the population of urban, and predominantly Irish, poor. So why would he argue that poor women could get themselves off the street by skinning their toddlers to make into gloves for fine and elegant ladies? Because the people Swift is ridiculing, the upper classes so concerned with these poor and lazy souls in the street, have had their humanity so far removed as to believe it. Only an idiot or a dishonest philanthropist could be so credulous of A Modest Proposal at face value.

This Isn't About Me

I watch friends and colleagues like Reza Aslan, Jillian C. York, Hend Amry, and Talib Kweli (just to name a few) get trolled all the time. I shout back at the trolls or offer public support to them when I can just so they know they're not alone.

I am white, I am straight, I am married, and I can take nice photos because my chosen appearance is traditionally feminine.I have a lot of privilege which has protected me thus far from the sorts of abuse many of my out-group and female friends have received online. I have a body of published work out there that demonstrates my serious commitment to human rights and my ability to write compassionately about victims. I'm not terribly worried about any professional losses, simply the threat of chronic inconveniences. I'm not angry for my own sake.

I'll get back on Twitter sooner or later and I'll be fine. We need to think about what tactics the trolls are learning to silence so many others with views similar to mine. Buzzfeed reporter, and white female, Katie Notopoulos was locked out for ten days after trolls reported her for joking "kill all white people". Granted I think my satire is a bit more sophisticated than Kate's, our tweets have the same function and we shouldn't be banning satirical speech based on a subjective judgement of its value.

Women, of all types, are at the most risk of abuse online. Amnesty International has researched this subject pretty thoroughly and finds that women are disgusted by Twitter's response to harassment. Twitter knows it has a problem but seems unable or unwilling to fix it. Last year at The Root, Monique Judge looked at how race and gender correlated with harassment on Twitter. The list of studies and articles on the subject go on and on.

Meninists will probably always exist, but there's no reason Twitter should take our attempts to laugh at them so seriously.

Extra Fun: My Prezi for Year 10 and older students on Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal". Created for my job as a Tavistock Tutor.

#killallmen satire #feminism #gender #jonathan swift #twitter #literature

0 notes

maxwellyjordan · 7 years ago

Text

Tuesday round-up

Yesterday the justices added two cases to their merits docket for next term and asked for the views of the solicitor general in one case. Amy Howe covers the order list for this blog; her coverage first appeared at Howe on the Court.

The court also issued opinions in two cases yesterday. The first is Texas v. New Mexico, an original-jurisdiction case in which a unanimous court held that the United States can pursue claims against New Mexico for violation of the Rio Grande water compact. Ryke Longest has this blog’s opinion analysis. Subscript offers a graphic explainer for the opinion. At The Daily Caller, Kevin Daley reports that “[t]hough the ruling was limited to the facts at hand, the Court has now opened the door to federal intervention in agreements between the states, known as interstate compacts.”

In U.S. Bank National Association v. Village at Lakeridge, in another unanimous opinion, the justices held that the court of appeals was right to defer to the bankruptcy court’s determination of non-statutory insider status. This blog’s opinion analysis comes from Ronald Mann. Subscript’s graphic explainer is here.

For The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin reports that “[t]he Trump administration on Monday urged the Supreme Court to expand states’ authority to collect sales tax on internet transactions, joining a chorus of state officials seeking to overrule a 1992 precedent exempting many online retailers from having to add taxes to a consumer’s final price.” At OUPblog, Edward Zelinsky discusses the current case, South Dakota v. Wayfair, arguing that “the Supreme Court should overrule Quill in the Court’s role as guardian of the states against federal commandeering.” [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the petitioner in this case.]

At NPR, Nina Totenberg surveys the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment jurisprudence. In an op-ed at The Hill, Lawrence Friedman reflects on the court’s recent cert denial in Silvester v. Becerra, a challenge to California’s 10-day waiting period for firearms purchases, suggesting that “this is simply not the right time for the Supreme Court to step into debates about the Second Amendment’s scope.” In an op-ed at Fox News, Adam Carrington finds the justices’ reluctance “to rule on the constitutionality of gun regulations in a systematic fashion” “both strange and problematic.”

Briefly:

At Constitution Daily, Lyle Denniston reports that “[t]wo prominent leaders in Republican politics have urged the Supreme Court to consider the Pennsylvania redistricting case as a part of this year’s intense political battle for control of the U.S. House of Representatives – an issue outside the constitutional issues at stake.”

For The New York Times, Adam Liptak observes that the advancing age of death-row inmates is affecting the Supreme Court’s death-penalty jurisprudence, as “[t]he court, which has barred the execution of juvenile offenders and the intellectually disabled, is now turning its attention to old people.”

At CNN, Joan Biskupic reports that “[o]ver the past year, the Trump administration has reversed the US government’s legal position on voting rights and election law, on the arbitration of workplace disputes, labor union power, and protections for gay and transgender people,” potentially affecting several pending Supreme Court cases.

At the Yale Journal on Regulation’s Notice & Comment blog, Jennifer Mascott looks at the federal government’s brief in Lucia v. Securities and Exchange Commission, in which the solicitor general “contends that the Court should revisit ALJ tenure protections that are too robust and insular[] to provide meaningful supervision under Supreme Court precedent”; she suggests that “there are reasons to reconsider the claim that the existence of an expert corps of agency adjudicators necessitates nearly impervious removal protections.”

At The World and Everything In It (podcast), Mary Reichard discusses the recent oral arguments in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, the high-profile union-fees case, and Dahda v. United States, in which the justices considered how broadly to read a statute requiring the exclusion of a wiretap order that exceeds a judge’s territorial jurisdiction.

At The George Washington Law Review’s On the Docket blog, Cori Alonso-Yoder considers Jennings v. Rodriguez, in which the court held that immigration-law provisions do not give detained aliens a right to periodic bond hearings but remanded the case for the lower courts to consider whether the provisions are constitutional, concluding that “the unsettled nature of the Jenningsdecision foreshadows a future in which the courts are likely to wrestle with increased calls to address these issues of detention and enforcement.”

At the Cato Institute’s Cato at Liberty blog, Jay Schweikert urges the justices to review a cert petition that will allow it to “reconsider its misguided qualified immunity jurisprudence,” which, he argues, “lacks any legal basis, vitiates the power of individuals to vindicate their constitutional rights, and contributes to a culture of near-zero accountability for law enforcement and other public officials.”

In an op-ed at the Washington Examiner, Jay Hobbs weighs in on National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, a First Amendment challenge by crisis-pregnancy centers to a California law requiring disclosures about the availability of publicly funded family-planning services; he asserts that “[a]mong its many and obvious flaws, the act accepts as gospel truth the false narrative from NARAL that pregnancy centers mislead women.”

In an essay available at SSRN, Michael McConnell considers Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, in which the court will decide whether the First Amendment bars Colorado from requiring a baker to create a cake for a same-sex wedding; he maintains that although “[s]ome may say that [a decision in favor of the baker] prioritizes one right over another – the right of freedom of speech, or perhaps the freedom of religion — over the right not to suffer invidious discrimination,” such a decision would instead “put these rights on an equal plane.”

At Excess of Democracy, Derek Muller tries to determine which recent justices “attract the most academic attention,” concluding that “Justice Scalia dwarfs all others, which was not surprising.”

We rely on our readers to send us links for our round-up. If you have or know of a recent (published in the last two or three days) article, post, podcast, or op-ed relating to the Supreme Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com. Thank you!

The post Tuesday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from Law http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/03/tuesday-round-up-418/ via http://www.rssmix.com/

#law #justice

0 notes