Anonymous asked:
Don’t worry, we’ll get to your other ask, I just didn’t want to dump it in the middle of a big pile of religious argument.
Anonymous asked:
Don’t worry, we’ll get to your other ask, I just didn’t want to dump it in the middle of a big pile of religious argument.
Anonymous asked:
Ugggh. Who do you think you are, Google?
Come back when you’re a multinational corporation physically embodying the threat of a societal panopticon in order to more efficiently sell Authentic™ skinny mom jeans to hipsters, loser.
[soon your askbox would be full of shitpost asks like Argumate’s and] you’d be tempted to make an ms paint collage for every single one.
This television show blog doesn’t have that kind of animation drawing budget.
But don’t worry. Most anons on this blog do not get a Full Custom™ MS Paint.JPG for their asks. It’s just the rate of images per ask that would reduce.
Anonymous asked:
A monarch is nothing more than the crown jewel worn by the State.
Dual Monachy? I’ve got anons inventing entirely new forms of government right here in my askbox.
Anonymous asked:
I was really expecting to be accused of misogyny, actually. I’m trying to calculate how many levels of misdirection this ask is on.
Maybe it’s about this post?
They can’t undo Toxic Masculinity, because they don’t understand Masculinity, and they don’t want to.
…because that would mean understanding things about themselves that they don’t want to understand, either.
In which the “they” is actually Mainstream Feminists.
Patterns of male behavior are in part driven by what straight women like/don’t like, or more accurately who they treat as hot/not hot, who they date/don’t date, etc.
Undoing what the Mainstream Feminists call “toxic masculinity” would mean that straight women, on average, would have to change, which would mean they’d have to first understand how cishet female preferences shape the very male power/dominance/status hierarchies they ostensibly oppose.
However, Feminism does poorly at attributing agency and power to women (beyond some of the “rah rah, girl power” stuff), as it’s more politically useful to present as the unpowered underdog.
Anonymous asked:
I admit, I focused on doing time travel, not watching time travel, so I haven’t seen all of them. It was more of a one-time thing, too.
Actually my knowledge of late 20th century movies is pretty selective. It was all considered pretty bloody problematic at the time, for most of them.
Anyhow, it’s kinda complicated, but the third way is the most, uh, accurate, I guess? There’s like a 50-50 chance I’m being chased by the Temporal Enforcement Bureau, but eh, I can live with it.
Anonymous asked:
Anon-kun brings us some excellent worldbuilding material.
Hey, you want to hear something?
If there are souls, and they aren’t just glorified backup devices, but are involved in our decision-making process, then the behavior of an ensouled body must be different in some way from an unensouled body.
And thus, the behavior of ensouled matter, too, must be different from unensouled matter.
The degree of difference in behavior from the hypothetical unensouled version would determine the magnitude of interference. If it’s fairly high (and it would need to be in order to justify certain religious beliefs), then it should be detectable statistically by comparison with control atoms.
Anonymous asked:
While many futurists anticipated broad advances across the technological economy, in fields ranging from computing to materials science, few foresaw the radical advancements in theology that advanced quantum theory would bring.
- The Quantum Fields of God, Ned Halibut, Kansas Revival Timeline, 2308 (retrieved from Church of Mars archives 2609 with permission of Father Gregory)
Anonymous asked:
That was along the lines of something I considered, although I don’t really believe in Many Worlds myself.
Omnibenevolence shouldn’t be something we look at and it’s clearly wrong, but it could be something we look at and it’s clearly alien. So, “make all possible worlds, such that all possible people have a chance to exist” is more along the lines of what one would expect. Or, “God cannot imagine a world without creating it” (nesting realities proposal) “and this is part of the reason evil exists - lack of infinite forethought”.
SAN FRANCISCO—In an effort to reduce the number of unprovoked hostile communications on the social media platform, Twitter announced Monday that it had added a red X-mark feature verifying users who are in fact perfectly okay to harass. “This new verification system offers users a simple, efficient way to determine which accounts belong to total pieces of shit whom you should have no qualms about tormenting to your heart’s desire,” said spokesperson Elizabeth James, adding that the small red symbol signifies that Twitter has officially confirmed the identity of a loathsome person who deserves the worst abuse imaginable and who will deliberately have their Mute, Block, and Report options disabled. “When a user sees this symbol, they know they’re dealing with a real asshole who has richly earned whatever mistreatment they receive, including profanity, body-shaming, leaking of personal information, and relentless goading to commit suicide. It’s really just a helpful way of saying to our users, ‘This fuck has it coming, so do your worst with a clear conscience and without fear of having your account suspended.’” At press time, Twitter reassuredly clarified that the red X was just a suggestion and that all users could still be bullied with as little recourse as they are now.