#Rights VS Mental Illness

[wanderingthedesertalone]

The Religion of Science: Bad Media Bad Grasp on Reality

Before you bang your fist on the desk and accuse me of being in the theist, deist or in the spiritualist camp let me tell you that I am agnostic at worst and an atheist at best, culturally I am a Jew and have respect for my ancestry but find all The Torah says hard to swallow. The universe is governed by detectable forces that require no deity. Yet, I believe it does take faith to believe in so much that us mortals declare a scientific fact, when facts, especially in recent years, have been nothing more than convenient narratives spun by those in power and sold to the youth who, often, take action on this misinformation.

As a skeptic I have to say that to believe much of what is flown under the banner of science takes a degree of faith. Firstly, one must have faith that the results of scientific inquiry haven’t been infiltrated by politics. These days, one would be a fool to believe such a thing, but such fools do exist. These fools don’t bat an eye at the idea of Big Tech, people who in my opinion have no right to declare what’s scientifically accurate, state that like a loving father they will oversee what information is disseminated and that they are the final word on what is disinformation. But, Big Tech isn’t an unbiased party. They tend to, as an example, dislike Israel, support abortion and the Covid vaccine. Make no mistake about it, censorship is political in nature, the ruling party is always the final word on what’s true. I’m not weighing in on any of the above and divulging political affiliation, I’m simply stating a fact. These days, it’s not a monarch who decides what’s accurate, it’s Big Tech, Big Pharma and Twitter’s Social Justice Warriors. Sadly, inconvenient truths are deemed as misinformation and followers of the religion of science blindly accept, although often against their better judgement, that the verdict passed down by those in power is the best possible answer.

To believe in everything that’s said to be scientific, one must have faith in media integrity. Irresponsibly, at the genesis of the AIDS epidemic, Dr. Fauci announced on air that “perhaps there will be a certain number of cases of individuals who [contract AIDS that] are just living with and in close contact with someone with AIDS, or at risk of AIDS, who does not necessarily have to have intimate sexual contact or share a needle, but just the ordinary close contact that one sees in normal interpersonal relations.” This single speculation inspired hundreds of theories and hoaxes about contracting the virus via everything from soda cans to toilet seats. As a result, many died in hospital beds while nurses were afraid to touch them. Yet, the informed knew that the virus wasn’t airborne. It was just the religion of science that swallowed the pill whole and conscripted this media propelled fear mongering into their belief system.

To believe in all that’s presented as science, one must have faith that the experiments were well conducted. For instance, the DSM III Removed homosexuality from its inventory of assessable disorders in 1980, this was largely due to the shoddily designed research of Alfred Kinsey. Kinsey declared that “ homosexuality [is] more common than previously assumed, thus suggesting that such behaviors [are] part of a continuum of sexual behaviors and orientations,” despite his sample being, intentionally or unintentionally, skewed. His methodology of arriving at a conclusion, popularism, as we can see from the above statement, is transparently flawed. But, it’s not just that his declaration is flawed, his research was most poorly conducted. Kinsey’s sample was limited to only 5000 males. Of those surveyed, a disproportionate number came from prison inmates, many of whom were sex offenders, he only interviewed one African American but his data wasn’t tabulated and he over-sampled people recruited via homosexual-friendly organizations or magazines. Like anyone else, homosexuals deserve all of the freedoms granted in The Bill of Right and this is something, when and if push comes to shove, I would fight until my very last breathe for, but, being deserving of rights makes them no less of a mentally ill fragment of society who’s 12% more prone to suicide than heterosexuals, significantly more likely than heterosexuals to abuse substances and have suffered childhood abuse. Yet, the religion of science insists that homosexuality is a healthy lifestyle. Social Media and the news never disclosed that Kinsey’s study was a sham and pushes the political agenda behind Kinsey’s message. The younger generation, being that they were raised on TV and social media, knows no better. They are our future leaders and those who will continue to perpetuate the religion of science.

Moreover, to become a believer in the religion of science, one must have faith that the answers provided aren’t merely the correlative events that human’s fallible perception can sense. Most who took Statistics in college are aware that there’s more car accidents when bikinis are on sale, but these two events aren’t related. In 1998, British physician Andrew Wakefield published a study in The Lancet, this study proposed a link between MMR vaccines and increasing rates of autism diagnoses in British children. We now know that there’s no relationship between these events. Despite a correlation, the experiment has been proven to be flawed. There wasn’t a causality. Adherents of the religion of science took to this notion and it became, and for some still is, part of their belief system.

Most of the above issues can be ruled out by peer review, but as with the recent covid vaccines not even peer review uncovered some of the dangers with the vaccine and accurate dissemination of information is a must.

I know what you’re thinking, science is rooted in fact and requires no faith, people don’t believe in science, science, because of the ways in which it investigates measurable occurrences is just correct. I agree, mostly. Yet, there is a religion of science. Adherents of the religion believe anything that fits into the zeitgeist or aligns with their own worldview. For example, The Bell Curve reports this on racial differences in IQ score, Blacks score lower, on average, than Whites. Adherents of the religion of science don’t like this fact and those who tout this may be subject, especially in certain European Countries, to fines and prison terms. I’m not disputing the uselessness of IQ scores, I myself find them of little use and see that there are flaws, although I disagree that the flaw is in the wording of questions (Ebonics and Texan aren’t uniquely codified dialects mutually unintelligible from their mother language, besides, all Americans were educated in the same system and should be able to code switch between ethnic slang and standardized English, as an example, I’m not British but possess the critical thinking skills to infer meaning from unknown British vernacular, but then again, inference in post Enlightenment systems of thinking is considered slanderous assumption). I believe in the science when the science is void of politics.

What caused there to be a religion of science? This phenomenon was caused by the gullibility of man, lack of time to research everything that is presented as science, the how political parties are to use “science” to push their narrative and flaws in methods of research. To be clear, the scientific method is the best we’ve got. Moreover, science isn’t something that requires faith, when done correctly and unadulterated by politics. But, the combination of the above causes there to be a pseudo religion, and even at times religions that exist under the banner of science, of science, like Scientology, blurring the lines between science, science-fiction and pop psychology. Despite my tirade against Gen Z, I don’t honestly expect everyone to sift through scientific articles to find the truth.

The real problem is that the religion of science stifles inconvenient data, data that might be used to find better answers to current questions. Best put in words by Kurt Vonnegut, “new knowledge is the most valuable commodity on earth. The more truth we have to work with, the richer we become Breakfast of Champions.” As a society, we must be granted, through the education system, media disseminating information with integrity and freedom of speech, the intellect and ability to question all things supposed by the socio-political machine that backs the religion of science, only through this means can we progress. Yet, we are living in an era of retrograde. Empiricism and systems of Enlightenment era thinking have gone out the window for feeling and truthiness (as coined by Stephen Colbert). America is Rome in the final days and the religion of science will be her downfall.

The fact is this, honesty in Big Tech ran media has gone the way of the dodo, Gen Z is gullible, the educational system has let them down, time constraint makes it so that most people can’t read every scholarly article, media readily mixes pop psychology, untested hypothesis along with anything that fits the contemporary narrative, even to the point of changing definitions, and packages it, whether that’s by putting it into law or just causing panic if said new scientific fact isn’t obeyed, and calls it all science. Facts are suppressed by the media for easily digested narratives or those who align with the current cultural zeitgeist.

How are us mere mortals supposed to sift through the sea of information and sniff out that which is accurate and hasn’t been filtered through the cultural-political machine? Besides, we live in an era in which a healthy dose of skepticism might brand one as an outcast and render them unable to work. If one questions the popular narrative they might be branded a Right Wing Conservative. We’ve heard it all before: “mask up, take the jab, join the new religion of science, no question, please.” Those who had questions like “what about herd immunity” or “why do definitions keep changing for immunity” were outcast. Often, it pays to fiend Gen Z gullibility.

But I have a few questions. Was it vaccines that put an end to previous pandemics or was it changing attitudes towards bathing, the fact that most people lived in rural communities and herd immunity that ended past epidemics? There are some observations that make these hypotheses worth looking into. During the Bubonic Plague, for example, it was observed that mortality was significantly lower in the Jewish Ghettos than in Christian populations. The “causes of this more favorable situation, which is very well documented from the end of the eighteenth century, are certainly many, ranging from compliance with hygiene standards prescribed by religion, rooted in moderate customs for eating and drinking, the low incidence of venereal diseases, and an economic level on average higher than average. I’m not suggesting that I know that hygiene is the cure for a viral pandemic. In fact, another author noted that “nor should it be forgotten that, if the environment in which Jews lived in the era of the ghettos was particularly unhealthy, the trades they exercised were among those with lower risks of morbidity and professional mortality, and that their living arrangements, pursuant to religious requirements, were particularly favorable for increased resistance against causes of lethality. Was it a complex combination of standards of hygiene in a filthy ghetto that caused Jews, during the Bubonic Plague, to be less susceptible to death, I don’t know. But, asking questions like these go against the new religion of science. One must blind themself to complexity and nuance: “shut up, masks and jabs work, if you have any doubts you’re just as naïve as those who believed vaccines caused Autism.”

The religion of science, because our youth was raised on all things instant and extreme, is filled with extremely binary false dichotomies. How many times have you heard “get the jab or everyone dies” or “wear a mask or everyone dies?” Sadly, it’s not only the foolish who fall for these, these false dichotomies, the kind that never account for any sort of nuance, are disseminated through media and, more often then not, align with the ruling party. The past 2 generations, Millennials and Gen Z, have been primed to accept extremes without question, this is the era in which racism allows for a Black president after all. Unscientific false dichotomies, like the above, readily intermingle with hard science and become part of what culture perceives as scientifically accurate.

Moreover, the religion of science demonstrates cult like behaviors. Those who lack reasoning skills often become, loudly and sometimes violently, the adherents of the religion of science. I for one have enough skepticism in my blood to question all things flown under the banner of science. I vow to listen to others with an open heart and judge their words based on the information I have and in the case that I don’t have any information on said topic, I will look for case studies because new knowledge is the most valuable commodity on earth. The more truth I have to work with, the richer I become.

The believers of the religion of science take these things to be scientific facts:

1) Concepts, although incorrect, that are easily digested and perfectly fit in with the current zeitgeist as touted by the media as scientific facts. As an example, many shouted wearing a mask is harmless although it was obvious to others that continual mask wearing is dangerous and recent study states that a “significant rise in carbon dioxide occurring while wearing a mask is scientifically proven. Fresh air has around 0.04% CO2 masks bear a possible chronic exposure to low level carbon dioxide of 1.41–3.2% CO2 of the inhaled air in reliable human experiments.”

2) Artefacts from popular psychology, those wivestales about mental health that sound correct but aren’t.

3) Concepts from psychology and the social sciences that are either only understood by the masses in part, taken out of context or never were correct but because the fact that they fit into the era’s zeitgeist they were adapted by the masses. For example, the alpha/beta man paradigm, which was discredited by the duo who first discovered it or that Dr. Money indisputably proved that gender is a spectrum.

3) A general misunderstanding of science. For example a belief in miraculous things like superfoods and that said superfoods are scientifically tested. This goes hand in hand with things like natural medicine (the greater the dilute the greater the efficacy), the healing powers of meditation (aside from a placebo effect) or any other sophistry that may have been shown somewhat effective in studies because they have the potential of improving outlook by increasing hope.

4) A belief that studies with few participants have the end answer. We saw this with things like priming and the covid vaccine efficacy.

5) Confusing and mixing philosophy with science. For example, although Pascal’s Wager may be completely rational to some, it isn’t science.

At times, science has been a cultural phenomenon that aligns itself with the current zeitgeist and those in power. This is just one of those times. It’s not a monarch these days who decides what’s accurate, it’s Big Tech, Big Pharma and Twitter’s Social Justice Warriors. Sadly, inconvenient truths are deemed as misinformation and followers of the religion of science blindly accept, although often against their better judgement, that the verdict passed down by those in power is the best possible answer.

In brief, faith in accurate results, along with accurate dissemination of results, is something hard to come by. In reality, this isn’t an article about science, it’s about media integrity and the naivety of the masses. To illustrate my point by returning to the notion of vaccines and Autism, the media in the UK rushed to publish the notion that vaccines cause Autism despite strong evidence refuting it. Moreover, at the beginning of the Pandemic Dr. Fauci said “There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you’re in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet, but it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is,” but media preferred to report a panic inducing and loyal religion forging and are defending mask wearing until this very day. Even pro-mask studies, like the one conducted in Bangladesh, prey on the masses’ inability to understand basic math. Ten percent efficacy wouldn’t be an acceptable number for anything else. Yet, the religion of science, sycophants for Big Tech, Big Pharma and those who currently run the country, conscripted these false claims into their belief system falsely claiming “it’s the science!”

Bibliography

Brown, M. (2021). Yes, Childhood Sexual Abuse Often Does Contribute to Homosexuality. The Stream. https://stream.org/yes-childhood-sexual-abuse-often-contribute-homosexuality/

ERLC. (2020, June 11). Alfred Kinsey: A Brief Summary and Critique — ERLC. https://erlc.com/resource-library/articles/alfred-kinsey-a-brief-summary-and-critique/

Foa, A. (2000). The Jews of Europe After the Black Death. Univ of California Press.

Lovering, N. (2022, January 28). Can Vaccines Cause Autism? Psych Central. https://psychcentral.com/autism/do-vaccines-cause-autism#where-did-this-myth-start

Mph, J. D. Q. M., & Larson, H. (2018, February 28). The Vaccine-Autism Myth Started 20 Years Ago. Here’s Why It Still Endures Today. Time. https://time.com/5175704/andrew-wakefield-vaccine-autism/

Researchers Find Disparities in Suicide Risk Among Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Adults. (2021, November 9). National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH). https://www.nimh.nih.gov/news/science-news/2021/researchers-find-disparities-in-suicide-risk-among-lesbian-gay-and-bisexual-adults

RudeBoyPadilla. (2022, January 24). Fauci, saying kids can get AIDS by just being close to someone with AIDS. Yet people trust this guy! [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aj-0woKO0c4

Siegel, E. (2017, April 12). The Real Problem with Charles Murray and “The Bell Curve.” Scientific American Blog Network. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/the-real-problem-with-charles-murray-and-the-bell-curve/

Staff, R. (2020, October 8). Fact check: Outdated video of Fauci saying “there’s no reason to be walking around with a mask.” U.S. https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-fauci-outdated-video-masks-idUSKBN26T2TR

Substance Use and SUDs in LGBTQ* Populations | National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2023, February 24). National Institute on Drug Abuse. https://nida.nih.gov/research-topics/substance-use-suds-in-lgbtq-populations

[tmcphotoblog]

[missmisandrytabletalk]

If somebody wants to know how patriarchy looks like post-secularism in the modern times, then pls proceed to watch the Indian film "Animal".. but a pirated version on an illegal site ofc cause u don't want those sick filmmakers and writers to profit off of this abhorrently wicked of a misogynistic crap. I can't believe the bollywood industry has still not put a ban on ANY of the films this arsehole of a director has created. And the major thing that irks and concerns me is that how in the world any of those female actresses have agreed to work with a chauvinistic bigot on a film that glorifies and romanticises domestic violence, marital rape, cheating/illicit affairs, objectification of women, daddy issues, mental disorders, men having viking-like demeanour and a fuck boi persona & justifies child abuse, homicides, assault & mistreatment of women, inculcating Islamophobia and the list literally goes on. And then they are the same women you see advocating for equality and preaching about feminism like nah babe you should take your pseudo and performative feminism somewhere else cause this ain't doing shit! This is why i say that we NEED misandry more than anything in this world. This would be our only redemption arc.

[jasontoddenthusiastt]

I think fans want Jason to be a good person or be becoming one. To have a character that is well meaning and compassionate but decided murder is ok and to stand against main heroes who’s beliefs and actions go against the people he cares about and wants in his life. It’s confusing for people. People want their fav characters to be happy. But Jason can’t have his family’s support and follow his moral code. He’s cares about people and Gotham, and he’s an asshole who kills. It’s messy. It’s not black and white. I don’t even think Jason cares about being a good person or in the right anymore. I think he cares about what will save the most people instead.

Oh my goodness gracious I’ve been bamboozled

Batman’s definition of Good is not synonymous with absolute good/right no matter how much dc insists it is. Torture, battery/assault, surveillance, those are all condemnable actions too. I won’t get into the exhausting and frankly dumb debate of comic book morality wrt killing because I’ve already reblogged plenty of posts from other people who explained my thoughts on the matter far better than I ever have the patience to sit down and articulate. I also just think the notion that there’s something to be done about fictional characters who kill nazis and senseless murderers is stupid. Jason’s point is that the “main” heroes’ sanitized definition of right has its unaddressed holes and flaws which ultimately result in more preventable fatalities, and that he’ll work to correct those missing spots.

He doesn’t not care about doing what’s right. What he doesn’t care about (at least during his Winick characterization) is whether Batman thinks he’s right or wrong, because he sees the flaws in Batman’s methodology (and since he has a mind of his own). Batman’s methods alone cannot address Arkham’s revolving door and the rogues that come and go through those doors who have no intention (or capability from the doylist pov) of ever changing or undergoing redemption. Jason knows that he’s minimizing the number of preventable deaths by killing his targets, typically Characters Who Simply Do Fucked Up Shit Just Because, Why The Fuck Not?

Secondly, Jason is compassionate … to a fault. That was his fatal flaw. If he wasn’t so hell-bent on saving his potential birth mother he just met from that bomb despite everything she did to him prior, he could have protected himself instead, however slim his odds of survival were. What about his relationship with his other parents? He was a caregiver during his early childhood years for Catherine, until her death. Even mature adults who are financially stable find being a caregiver to a dying parent to be extremely burdensome on their bodies and minds, but he never complained about it or resented Catherine for being unable to care for him. Despite how none of his parents have really been what he needed them to be, he doesn’t blame them for their failings, and even continues to think highly of them (Bruce included).

And post-death? Enter Lost Days. Despite being dead set on plotting his revenge on Bruce, he constantly sidelines this in order to save other victims who are helpless like he once was. His own anger, trauma, and mission don’t remain his priority. (Sound familiar? Something something my own trauma above my son’s, mission above all else, etc.). Why would he waste precious time and risk his own life to do this if he wasn’t empathetic towards these victims or didn’t care about doing the right thing. He is simultaneously horribly traumatized and full of rage, and also incapable of ignoring what’s happening to victims around him (even as he claims that it’s indeed not his priority). And in that same vein, the entire premise of his rebirth outlaws run was that he doesn’t care if the public views him as a villain, an outlaw, so long as he can protect Gotham. And anyway where is this portrayal of him not caring about being in the right anymore. Almost every modern Jason story is about him grappling with where he stands with Bruce/Batman. During the early 2000s was probably the last time he did not care (hello, tentatodd??).

Jason has very evidently been portrayed as a kind and compassionate character. He is also simultaneously a calculated killer who doesn’t hesitate to kill when he deems necessary, and does so without remorse. It’s called being a Complex Character With An Edge™ that as you said, people so often claim to love. However when he fulfills that latter part, that seems to upset people because “killing bad”, and they then try to shave off and round out all his edges and claim he shouldn’t be that angry. In that case I guess you should just stick to liking traditional one-dimensional characters instead of claiming to like Jason but then encouraging his character assassination attempt by dc. Lol.

Lastly, who said anything about the batfam making Jason happy? Just because he’s written nowadays to want acceptance from Bruce (a shoddy attempt at forcing a non-existent nuclear batfamily), doesn’t mean that it’s a sound decision or that it does his character justice. I certainly don’t empathize with the idea that Jason needs the family’s approval or acceptance to be happy. (And anyway he has enough outlets for angst and pain aside from the batfam hello explore his other sources of trauma and do more deep dives into how he thinks when he’s alone). I don’t want them to magically make up and become one big happy family. This is not disney Lol. Besides, there are plenty of stories from dc that have that type of “wholesome” (hate that word utilization) characterization for Jason (Li’l Gotham, Tiny Titans, wfa, and even new stuff like the brave and the bold mini) and that is sufficient imo. Jason fans who are invested in the character deserve accurate, nuanced characterization and well-written stories, whether they be from his robin days (e.g., Batman: The Cult) or as red hood.

[thedrotter]

(cw for a gun, mild blood and suicide in the last drawing.)

Day 1-5 of drawing Re:Kinder daily for a whole month! I'll be doing that all month. ☺️

I did not draw Re:Kinder enough (said both sarcastically and genuinely, because while I know the statement is ridiculous I also do believe it www), so I chose to challenge myself. I will post these every 5 days to not clog the tag too much.

[jacksoldsideblog]

truly nothing more depressing than seeing a blog glorifying self harm in the fight club tag in an unironic way and you click through to see its an anorexic 14 year old :/ i wish i could communicate like... it doesn't make you cool or better, it's not an actual way to control things in your life, i am so so sorry you think this is the sexy answer. but also jesus why do you blog about it

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Fern Oppenheim, David Bernstein and Eran Shayshon

Published: Jun 14, 2024

While the Jewish world was reeling from the inhumanity of the Oct. 7 massacre, an immediate aftershock came in the form of the anti-Israel rallies on college campuses and on the streets of major cities. Since that time, the protests have only intensified. Opposing Israel has become fashionable in some circles. Campus activists feel imbued with a sense of historic mission, perceiving themselves as the modern embodiment of the protest movements of the 1960s. Many Jewish professionals and lay leaders remain overwhelmed and unclear as to how to proceed. Years of investment in countering various forms of antisemitism have been proven inadequate. It should be clear by now that we need a new strategic approach and a comprehensive plan to enact it.

The post-Oct. 7 reality dictates a strategy that counters underlying ideological currents, places Jewish concerns in the context of broader American interests and upholds American and Western values. The current focus on antisemitism makes it appear that the strife on and off campus is a Jewish problem rather than an American problem. Antisemitism is low on the relevance scale for most Americans, but the health of American society is central. Based on our assessment of what went wrong, current survey data and key trends, we believe that the Jewish security is inextricably linked to firming up larger support for American values and a renewed commitment to the U.S.’s key geopolitical interests. We further argue that American Jewish organizations should prioritize work with new partners in civil society who share this mission and who should take center stage in effecting a larger cultural shift. In short, we believe the best defense against antisemitism is restoring the commitment of Americans to the nation’s founding principles under which American Jews and other minorities have thrived.

What went wrong?

The anti-Israel narrative — Israel as an apartheid, colonialist enterprise — gained limited support on college campuses over the past few decades. Yet trends in survey data indicate that while the anti-Israel narrative caused a slow erosion of support for Israel, the overwhelming majority of college students remained neutral and attitudes towards Jews were largely unaffected. In fact, the data through 2016 indicates that, even in the face of hostile campus rhetoric, most college students and most Americans cared little about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The issue was just not relevant to them and they remained in the “middle” — neither “core supporters” nor the “unreachable.” Likewise, antisemitism among college students remained low. Research indicated that the large group in the middle represented an opportunity as it could be swayed towards Israel once it was shown the broader face and humanity of the Israeli people.

So if the same anti-Israel narrative has been around for decades, what explains the dramatic increase in its acceptance now? Simply put, anti-Israel forces have found a way to make their cause relevant to a growing swath of Americans by linking it to the significant cultural and ideological shifts over the past ten years.

With the rise of the Black Lives Matter movement in 2014 and changes in the social media landscape, a binary ideology that divides society into oppressors and oppressed, skyrocketed in popularity on campuses. Anti-Israel groups successfully aligned themselves with activist groups representing marginalized communities, thereby significantly expanding the cohort of young Americans sympathetic to their cause. For the first time, Jewish students found themselves excluded from student social justice activities due to their sympathies towards Israel.

In the heated aftermath of the murder of George Floyd in 2020, this binary, oppressor-oppressed ideology found new audiences outside campuses. Diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) efforts, which frequently enshrined the oppressor-oppressed ideology, gained broad-scale penetration into numerous mainstream institutions including business, government, media, science, medicine, culture, K-12 schools, etc. So while the State of Israel and, now, Jews are seen by many as white, privileged oppressors in a broad swath of institutions, Hamas is increasingly seen as a legitimate resistance movement representing the marginalized.

It is important to note that notwithstanding the titular expression of solidarity with the Palestinian cause, protests against Israel on U.S. campuses are about far more than the Jewish state. Instead, they are often part of a larger agenda that aims to reshape the power structure, dismantle the larger social order, defund the police, undermine the very notion of meritocracy and undo the market economy and concept of private property. Many protesters on campus explicitly cite this larger worldview as a motivation for their campus activism. 

Against this backdrop, it is not surprising that in the wake of Oct. 7, most surveys of young people show high levels of support for Palestinians/Hamas and declining support for Israel. The majority are no longer in the swayable middle. Moreover, for the first time since the Anti-Defamation League began measuring such trends, young Americans are more likely to believe antisemitic tropes than older Americans. In short, by aligning with cultural shifts occurring among the progressive left, anti-Israel forces — many representing extreme Islamist perspectives — have successfully made their narrative relevant to many young Americans.

While the Jewish community was busy maintaining support for Israel in the political arena, ideologues sought to and succeeded in changing the culture. We are now experiencing the downstream effects of our collective failure to counter dangerous cultural trends.

A strategic pivot

If Israel is to retain American support down the road and if Jews are to be safe in this country, then action must be taken to reverse these cultural shifts. For the most part, the Jewish community has responded to the post-Oct. 7th onslaught with well-funded efforts to counter antisemitism and anti-Zionism. It is not doing enough to make its case more relevant to Americans than it was years ago, unlike the anti-Israel camp, which broadened its appeal in the intersectional arena.

Yet there is good news amid the bad. In this highly charged environment, Israel and its allies have lost support among college students, but not among most Americans. Raucous anti-Israel protests on campuses have alarmed many Americans, who are concerned that these anarchists pose a clear and present danger to the U.S. The Jewish communal world needs to take a page from its enemies’ playbook and make its cause more broadly relevant by aligning with the significant percentage of Americans who believe in the American dream, oppose chaos and support the principled use of American power in the world. Jews represent only 2% of the American population; we cannot win this battle on our own.

The Jewish community needs to work with those who are already fighting back on various fronts and to catalyze the energies of those who may be concerned but are not yet taking action. The focus of such coalitional efforts must be on strengthening the American narrative and values, not on antisemitism or Israel. And these efforts need to be led by diverse American voices rather than Jewish groups, as they will be seen as more believable and less likely to have an agenda. In short, the Jewish community needs to lead from behind.

We are currently developing a white paper that lays out in greater detail the needed strategic shift and will be holding sessions in person and online in the coming months. For more information, email: americanvaluesstrategy@gmail.com 

[ardentpoop]

they literally had no clue what a special and one-of-a-kind character they had on their hands

leagues above the rest of this show’s characters in terms of emotional depth

[personal-blog243]

Another thought experiment/tangent related to the “man vs bear” discourse.

If I was being attacked and had to kill in self defense, I personally would feel more morally conflicted if I had to kill my fellow human being in self defense. I would not feel as bad about killing an animal. 🤷🏼‍♀️ there is a reason why soldiers have higher rates of PTSD than big game hunters.

Obviously proving self defense in court is very difficult for people who aren’t straight white men and the justice system has proven itself not to be in favor of women so that needs to be said.

I also work at a mental health/addiction hospital that has plenty of male patients who have committed horrible acts of violence. Staff are regularly assaulted by the male patients, more than the female ones. However there are very strict rules about how the staff can defend themselves and that is because EVEN VIOLENT PEOPLE HAVE RIGHTS! Protecting patients from abuse is considered higher priority than protecting staff from abuse and that is because of the imbalance of power and protecting the rights of even “bad” people.

Keep in mind the majority of violent people have mental health issues of some sort.

[ickysmelly]

the worst part of thinking about my old and current favs is comparing my types

[choropilled]

comparing my selfships again but i think cychoro awre probably much more insatiable than zarahjiwoon... i dont know.. the dynamics are similar but simply as People cychoro are much less Fulfilled by wehat theyre doing in general. so on and so forth

[moneyfor-nothing]

Oh…… I’m in every part of this post…… 🤪 but we stay silly

normal vs disordered: fatigue edition

normal: feeling tired at the end of a long day

not normal: feeling tired regardless of what you��ve done that day

normal: waking up tired every now and then due to stress or lack of sleep

not normal: waking up tired most mornings

normal: getting a little tired after standing for long periods of time

not normal: not being able to stand for very long without tiring out. being stood up drains your energy

normal: being tired more often during times of peak stress and lack of sleep, but otherwise fine

not normal: being tired/exhausted consistently for over 6 months

normal: melting into the sofa after a long day, and then struggling a little to get up

not normal: being too exhausted to move, to eat, to talk, or to do anything a person might be expected to do in an evening

normal: not liking to get out of bed in the morning

not normal: having mornings where you physically cannot get out of bed, or struggle greatly to get out of bed

the key thing is that it is not normal for you to spend most of your time being too tired to do daily tasks, and it is not normal to exist in a constant state of exhaustion. if possible, you should seek help if you’ve been experiencing fatigue for a while

[snekdood]

bitches call religion a mental illness but wont call the weird flavor of "reality" a certain section of tumblr users are making up for themselves mental illness

[pensiveant]

depeche mode is one of my father's favorite bands so i grew up with their music and songs like master and servant are the sound of my childhood

[imnotquitesurewhattodo]

That time of year where I live close enough to the sketchy part of town but it’s also a holiday. My dog and I spend the night curled up together both spiraling in anxiety.

Fun fact. One of us is vaguely calmer than the other and actually manages to sleep and it is in fact not the human.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Christopher F. Rufo

Published: Oct 22, 2024

Since the outbreak of the Israel-Hamas war more than a year ago, perplexing forms of open anti-Semitism have cropped up on both sides of the political aisle. First visible on the political left with an eruption of protests and even of violence on Ivy League campuses, it also appeared soon enough on the political right.

What has transpired is a complex story about the academy and the internet, the elite and the fringes—one that we must confront directly as it reveals something rotten in our politics. This concerning trajectory can only be changed through the restoration of higher principles that once kept these threats in check. In the face of dangerous identity-based ideologies, it is crucial to return to America’s historic defense of colorblindness, meritocracy, and fair play.

Left-wingers have participated in anti-Israel and pro-Hamas agitation, in some cases even defending the Hamas militants who massacred approximately some 1,200 innocents, including at a music festival. Keffiyeh-clad student protesters captured buildings at Columbia, eventually setting off a wave of copycat flashpoints at other universities. Elites institutions like Harvard—which previously had issued statements on political controversies ranging from Black Lives Matter and #MeToo to the war in Ukraine—suddenly went silent on the Israel-Hamas war in the name of protecting freedom of speech.

These institutions have failed to keep in check the simplistic oppressor-versus-oppressed ideology that undergirds the worldview of today’s left. The provincial-minded elites that call the shots in these institutions tend to filter every conflict through this ideological lens, looking primarily to skin color and then power dynamics as the main criteria for judging the rectitude of a cause. Palestinians, with their slightly darker skin tone and less developed economy and military, fit the “oppressed” mold, thus making the Jewish state their “oppressor.” 

Though this line of thought dates back to the 1960s (think of the Black Panthers’ alliance with the Palestinian cause), this is the first time that it has come to dominate discourse on university campuses. This is thanks in part to the collapse of intellectual diversity on campus. But it also has attracted numerous students and professors because of the prevalence of victim worship and the subsequent resentment toward successful groups. In their eyes, Palestinians are a kind of eternal victim. A pseudo-historical narrative tells us they have been victimized for time everlasting, and lack any agency in their own fate. Ironically, the oppression of the Jews dates back to biblical times, yet American Jews are one of the most successful groups in academia and other intellectual professions. The success of a minority group throws a wrench into the left’s narrative gears.

Across the political aisle, anti-Semitic ideologies have a history of appearing in the form of conspiratorial thinking on the fringes of American conservatism. Lately, it has been the non-traditional right-wingers—who, because of how our politics works, have been lumped in with “conservatism” writ large—who espouse such views. Take Kanye West, who was a kind of ally to Donald Tru.mp and then embedded himself within the right, eventually suffering from mental breakdowns and going off on anti-Semitic rants. 

Or Candace Owens, who, although always controversial, once understood where the lines lay. This was in part because of her employers, her partners, and the rules on platforms like YouTube or X (formerly Twitter). Yet in recent months, she began questioning whether the Axis powers deserved Western antipathy, and even apologizing for Kanye’s threat to “go defcon three on some Jews” and musing about a “small ring of people in Hollywood who are using the fact that they are Jewish to shield” their supposed crimes (always careful to hedge, she insists this characterization doesn’t apply to American Jewry writ large, but the hallmarks of classic anti-Semitism are unmistakable in her discourse).

On X, many right-wing accounts espouse open anti-Semitism, often posting allegedly ironic memes about Adolf Hitler. I once posted something about critical race theory, and was told by one of these accounts, “Well, you know that critical race theory was invented by Jews.” Though this kind of right-wing conspiratorial thinking is nothing new, the fact that it has become so commonplace on online platforms like X is an alarming novelty that merits our concern.

The growing distrust of mainstream institutions that is characteristic of today’s right can’t be written off completely. This sentiment—ushered in by figures like Donald Tru.mp—swept away the broken establishment Republican consensus, yet it has failed to fill the ideological vacuum it has created. Tru.mp tried to fill it with partisan politics but lacked an adequate intellectual framework. Those who retrofitted their ideologies to Tru.mp attempted to create an intellectual substructure for his presidency, in some cases ushering in a kind of chaotic element. To be sure, chaos can create space for creativity. But it always comes with a downside.

This ideological vacuum is compounded with relaxed censorship policies on platforms like X, thanks to its new owner, Elon Musk. To be sure, this has allowed more space to express legitimate viewpoints and is preferable to the old censorship system. But it has also allowed conspiratorial thinking to gain traction. Worse, it has opened the door to alt-right influencers and the so-called Groypers, who have taken politics as a method of garnering attention and then monetizing it either on or off their platforms. This has all been exacerbated by the disappearance of gatekeepers and overall quality control within the post-establishmentarian right.

At face value, the fact that such seemingly opposed cultural subsets can find a point of convergence is perplexing, to say the least. One is in the academy, an elite group pursuing prestige. The other is on the internet, a fringe phenomenon, pursuing clicks. But if we take a closer look, we find that both are identity-based movements. Both movements are driven by envy, resentment, fear, and the impulse to locate a scapegoat to achieve their general political objectives. What’s at stake in these two groups having such an influence over discourse is something much bigger than the Israel-Hamas conflict. 

Should we fail to restrain their growth, we will have two large factions in the United States that want to abandon the principles of colorblind equality, fair play, and judging individuals on their own merit. Thus, this isn’t just a question of anti-Semitism, but a question of how we want to govern our society. It is in our best interest as a nation to reject both left-wing identity politics, which seeks to categorize everyone in an intersectional hierarchy and then use the state to force equity or the equalization of outcomes, and right-wing conspiratorial thinking, a form of pessimism used to pin one’s failures on someone else’s success.

We are blessed to live in a country where people can succeed when they work hard and put their talent to good use. It is imperative that we fight to maintain a narrative that reflects this reality, rather than capitulating to pessimistic ideologies divorced from the facts. 

In 1790, George Washington wrote a letter to the Hebrew Congregation of Newport, RI. This letter offers us a model of how American principles can assimilate minority groups and, in particular, American Jews. Some scholars view it as the first time that Jews were welcomed as full citizens of a modern national polity. Washington acknowledged that Jews have the same liberties, rights, and benefits of citizenship. And that citizenship requires all of us to work hard, to contribute to society, and to play by the rules. 

Washington’s letter should cause us to reflect on how far we have come since the time he wrote it. Today, our nation is home to a diverse mix of people from a variety of continental, racial, and religious backgrounds. The principles that Washington laid out are precisely the ones that can still work today if we are dedicated to them. The recent surge in racialist and conspiratorial thinking calls us to renew the case for these principles and to argue for them. 

This is the only way forward for the country.