Categories
alpha males antifeminism beta males evil sexy ladies evil women heartiste I'm totally being sarcastic irony alert men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny precious bodily fluids PUA racism reactionary bullshit

Caulking in Her C*ck Vault: A New and Improved Chateau Heartiste Crib Sheet of Game

Don't let anyone see you checking your notes!
Don’t let anyone see you checking your notes!

So our dear friend Heartiste, the white-supremacist woman-botherer, has assembled a little “Chateau Heartiste Crib Sheet of Game,” a compilation of some of his best pickup advice, boiled down to a few handy tips and clever one-liners that wannabe alpha males can use on the ladies during conversation in order to get their ginas tingling. (Sorry, that’s the way these guys talk.)

Looking at Heartiste’s list of “lines” I was struck by how generic and, well, frankly unoriginal most of them were, from standard issue negs like “nice shoes. Those are really popular now” and “is she always like this?” to old-school PUA cliches like “I don’t buy girls drinks but you can buy me one” and  “what else do you have going for you besides your looks?” both of which come straight from peacocking PUA pioneer Mystery, the guy with the fuzzy hat and the long-ago-cancelled VH1 show.

Indeed, a lot of Heartiste’s “lines” are as old and stale as he is:

Don’t get clingy

Miss me already?

Hey, hands off the merchandise

If i didn’t know any better i’d say you were trying to pick me up

So I thought I’d do Heartiste a little favor and write up some new lines for him and his fans that are both more original and a bit more honest. Next time you’re in “da club,” Heartiste, why don’t you try some of these out? Some of these I made up myself; some are taken, or adapted, from things you yourself wrote.

Hi, I spend most of my life on the internet trying to figure out how to manipulate drunk women half my age into bed.

People on the internet know me as Heartiste. No, not Fartiste. With an H. No, it’s not a joke. I thought it up myself.

I like to call black people “darkies.” No, not to their face. Anonymously, on the internet.

I’m an alluringly savvy man self-assuredly parrying the clit-hardened jousts of intrigued women.

Too much outbreeding decreases charitable kin-feeling and incentivizes a decadent ennui that severs the citizen’s sense of obligation to his nation and co-ethnics.

A gentlemanly selectiveness honed by years of experience and psychological nimbleness has proved adequate at filtering out women likely to lay like dead fish in my roiling sea of sperm.

If anyone can usurp the lawyercunt in cuntishness, it’s the Twittercunt.

The walls are closing in on the lords of lies and their feels army of emotabots.

Whether our ruling class knows it or they bumble along like drug addicts seeking the next pleasurable injection of power at any cost, their sex-swapping project will turn the West into matricentric, female forager Africa.

Every time we had sex over the following weeks, it ended with her tucking her knees under her chin naked on the bed to quietly cry into the wrapped bubble of her body.

The only bond that matters in a woman’s heart is the one you caulk in her cock vault.

The ruling elites despise whites, despise the concept of whiteness, and despise especially the idea that the territory and nation and culture from which they parasitically suck the lifeblood was created and sustained primarily by white men.

The id of the Like Me Generation is a furry suit wrapping a toddler.

Women should avoid trying to be funny altogether and stick to maximizing the return on their authentically valuable assets. That would be your tits, ass, face and pussy, in case you were wondering.

That last bit was pure Heartiste. (As were the previous ten.) Like the women of the world, I can’t hope to attain such pinnacles of wit.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

319 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
LBT
LBT
6 years ago

RE: Kittehs

Now I’m getting a cross between “I’m not dead yet!” from the Holy Grail and Spike Milligan’s choice of headstone – “I told you I was ill!”

Fear not. I’ve already withstood three splits in the past three years without expiring. As long as I don’t get a repeat of the Bad Years again, I figure my system is stuck with me.

RE: opium4themasses

I like hearing about “conversion” stories from other people. So no tldr here either. I espe ially like hearing about them from nom-christian POV.

The closest I ever got to wanting to join a religion was Judaism, during a writing project where I was doing lots of research on the subject. I had known virtually nothing about the faith, and was pretty impressed by it. Uuuuuunfortunately it requires circumcision and is completely against all forms of euthanasia, and those are hard limits for me. SO NOPE. No religion for me!

RE: Falconer

Hugs, if you want them! Small cute fuzzy animals!

Aw, it’s okay. These things happen. (Now, if they happened less often, I would NOT be sad.)

RE: leftwingfox

They do still give psychiatry the side-eye though.

I shouldn’t find this funny, but I totally do. Naturopaths and ley-lines = totally okay, but PYSCHIATRY???

For an atheist, the predominant reason they are an atheist is because they rejected religion as false, not just for themselves, but universally.

Not me! I know two systems with a Loki in them, and I’ve spoken with them, so it’s quite apparent they exist. I just have absolutely no interest in worshipping them or treating them any differently than I would other people. (Fortunately, that works for them; they’re way more into talking about 90s musicals with my husband.)

So yeah, I’m pretty much a Pratchett atheist. I have absolutely no problem believing that gods exist and add things to other people’s lives. I just don’t want them to be involved in my personal life. I am choosing to be spiritually uninsured, as it were. (Or spiritually indebted, as I see it.)

LBT
LBT
6 years ago

RE: Binjabreel

Right?! I mean, the whole point of the damn book is “who the hell are you to presume to know why god does anything?”

I KNOW. And it’s kinda weird, considering what an ass God is in that book, but I LOVE the book of Job, because you can just tell the writer/s were so fucking sick of the idea that all misfortune was due to wrongdoing, and they wanted to just smash it down once and for. (Except people are still going on about it two thousand years later. Dammit.)

I find theology utterly fascinating. It’s such involved, in-depth wankery, it’s like watching nerds argue about whether adamantium is actually ferro-magnetic.

I KNOW OMG. I swear, Judaism beats out every other group of nerds for sheer depth of scope. They’ve been arguing about exactly what everything means for a couple thousand years, and then they argue about other people’s arguments, and people build more arguments off of that and it’s just beautiful. (I mean that earnestly; any people who can argue so vociferously and at such length without trying to murder each other has my respect.)

LBT
LBT
6 years ago

Dammit, I meant NOT being spiritually in debt, not the reverse. Where my head at?

Octo
Octo
6 years ago

I… can try. But unless you tell me with what you have a problem, or what you might have potentially misinterpreted I fear I might just be rearranging words instead of explaining what I mean…

As I understand it, leftwingfox’ point, which also has come up earlier in the debate, is that the insistence of movement atheists about the importance of the truth value of a statement misses the mark, because the truth value of religious statements is often not actually why religious people keep believing. Instead, many religious people stay religious because of the social and psychological functionality of religions – what leftwingfox called emotional and social value.

My point was that while there is a disconnect, it isn’t a matter of missing the mark., as was sorta implied, solely the fault of movement atheists. Rather, the disconnect stems from theists/deists and movement atheists stressing different things – and movement atheists stressing the truth value is not in fact missing the mark, it is in fact just as valid as theists stressing the emotional and social functionality of religion. It’s just a matter of having different focuses.

And for movement atheists (or, I’d say, for many of them, at least, probably not all), the focus just is the truth value, that is, whether a religious statement is in fact true or not. For those people, this is way more so than any social or emotional impact the statement may have. And this is my opinion as well: In my opinion, what should matter is if a statement is true or not, regardless of how much emotional comfort or social stability or whatever it may bring. That’s what I meant.

sparky
sparky
6 years ago

Octo:

Ah, yes. Thank you. Now I understand.

I think what I was getting caught up on was the idea of “social stability” and on what kind of level you talking about. It seems you are speaking more to the philosophical underpinnings (for lack of better terms) of atheism, and movement atheism in particular. I was thinking more along the lines of “social stability” as people being able to co-exist peacefully in a functioning society.

Thank you for clarifying! 🙂

Falconer
6 years ago

I swear, Judaism beats out every other group of nerds for sheer depth of scope. They’ve been arguing about exactly what everything means for a couple thousand years, and then they argue about other people’s arguments, and people build more arguments off of that and it’s just beautiful. (I mean that earnestly; any people who can argue so vociferously and at such length without trying to murder each other has my respect.)

I’ve heard that Asimov’s robots argue the robotic laws in the same way that rabbis argue Talmud, and intentionally so.

Unfortunately, apparently the tradition of Christian thought in the West has been shaped by the idea that Jewish folk are too hung up on laws and materialism, beginning with the early church in Egypt, and that Europeans have used the (false) idea that Jewishness is constrained, judgmental, acquisitive, power-hungry and fixated on this world to help them understand the world for the last two millennia. To the point that the French Revolution was condemned by some in England as the work of Jewish folk, even though those same people knew perfectly well there wasn’t a Jewish person anywhere near the top of the whole thing.

I mean, there’s supercessionism, and then there’s using a group as boogeymen.

And this is absolutely not the fault of the Jewish folk, no matter how argumentative they may actually be.

Somehow that framework doesn’t seem to have caught on in the United States.

LBT
LBT
6 years ago

RE: Falconer

Yeah, and that’s really horrifying. The sheer amount of debate and arguing and curiosity is what drew me to Judaism, and then you’ve got asshats who treat them badly because of it. Urgh. I swear, the unluckiest religion on the planet…

leftwingfox
6 years ago

They do still give psychiatry the side-eye though.

I shouldn’t find this funny, but I totally do. Naturopaths and ley-lines = totally okay, but PYSCHIATRY???

Yep. It actually does make a certain sense. If you don’t study them too closely, the placebo effect and self-delusion can make both of those feel just as effective and tangible as doctors and stud-finders (the kind used to find wood in the walls, not hot dudes).

Psychiatry on the other hands intrudes into beliefs about the nature of the soul. Is the mind an artifact of the body, the soul, or a combination of the two? To that end, they tend to see drugs and diagnosis as potentially restricting the spiritual needs that the psychological issues represent. Like all the other beliefs, this isn’t absolute. I’m sure they accept some level of psychological intervention, but they do tend to grumble about the medicalization of human experience.

I probably would have benefitted tremendously from a therapist in Jr. High school.

For an atheist, the predominant reason they are an atheist is because they rejected religion as false, not just for themselves, but universally.

Not me!

Whoops! My bad. That was way more universal than I meant it to be. I should have said “For many atheists”.

Binjabreel
Binjabreel
6 years ago

@lbt, re Job-
Hahaha, oh, and my favorite part is when you compare the revisions and in the newer versions, they add the fourth friend who comes along and spells out the moral in total clarity.

Like, I can just imagine someone sitting down to revise the story and being like, “okay, you thickheaded chucklefucks, obviously I was being too subtle before.”

LBT
LBT
6 years ago

RE: leftwingfox

stud-finders (the kind used to find wood in the walls, not hot dudes)

Man, I need a stud-finder! Oh wait, there’s my husband. Never mind, I found him.

Psychiatry on the other hands intrudes into beliefs about the nature of the soul. Is the mind an artifact of the body, the soul, or a combination of the two? To that end, they tend to see drugs and diagnosis as potentially restricting the spiritual needs that the psychological issues represent.

I can sooooorta see where they’re coming from? But yeah, I know a loooooot of people whose meds saved their life. Like I get it, I know folks who have been overmedicated too, but sometimes, you fuckin’ need your pills. (Mine kept me from committing suicide, and even if suicidal depression was an effect, not a cause of my suffering, hey, they kept me shambling on until I was able to solve the situation.)

Whoops! My bad.

Don’t worry about it, I was pretty sure you didn’t mean it to be universal. 😉

LBT
LBT
6 years ago

RE: Binjabreel

Like, I can just imagine someone sitting down to revise the story and being like, “okay, you thickheaded chucklefucks, obviously I was being too subtle before.”

Honestly, the whole book of Leviticus feels like this to me. It’s so overwrought and repetitive that I can only imagine the conversation going like this:

God: “Okay, you can’t oppress your neighbor.”

Chucklefuck: “Can I rob him?”

God: “No! No, you can’t rob him! And stop cursing at that deaf person!”

Chucklefuck: “Come on, it’s not like he can hear it…”

God: “What part of ‘don’t oppress your neighbor’ don’t you understand?”

Chucklefuck: “He doesn’t even know it, but fine. Can I fuck with blind people, then?”

God: “OH MY ME WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM NO YOU CAN NOT FUCK WITH BLIND PEOPLE. THAT KIND OF COMES UNDER OPPRESSING YOUR NEIGHBOR. ”

Chucklefuck: “But WHY can’t I oppress my neighbor?”

God: “OH FOR THE LOVE OF — I AM THE LORD YOUR GOD. KNOCK IT THE FUCK OFF.”

kittehserf
6 years ago

they still kept dragging their asses to this huge edifice and giving money to a guy wearing gold lamé.

The Church of Liberace! :O

LBT
LBT
6 years ago

Now THERE’S a church I’d be wiling to join.

kittehserf
6 years ago

You’d get trampled in the rush – Mac would be there ahead of you. 😛

Leum
Leum
6 years ago

I used to ID as an atheist, but I’ve stopped, although I still technically meet the requirements (i.e. I don’t believe in supernatural beings). There’s a few reasons for that, and they’re related. One is that I started practicing Buddhism, and even though I don’t believe its supernatural claims, I… “want” is to strong of a word; I’d like to, maybe?

I also don’t share movement atheists’ belief that religion is an inherently bad thing. I quite like religion; I’m going to grad school in religious studies. I find it endlessly fascinating and an important aspect of culture. One of the quickest ways to make me upset/angry is to talk about how awful it is that religious parents raise their kids in their religion (e.g. Dawkins’ “child abuse” claim, although that’s an extreme example).

Finally, I reached a point in my understanding of the world where the most basic claim of movement atheists, that there is an objective reality prior to human observation and that we can learn objective truths about it via the scientific method, doesn’t work for me. I’ve reached a point where I don’t think that language, the most basic unit of human thought, can adequately express anything truly important or real, and it left me very skeptical of the whole enterprise of objective reality.

LBT
LBT
6 years ago

RE: Leum

I used to ID as an atheist, but I’ve stopped, although I still technically meet the requirements (i.e. I don’t believe in supernatural beings). There’s a few reasons for that, and they’re related. One is that I started practicing Buddhism, and even though I don’t believe its supernatural claims, I… “want” is to strong of a word; I’d like to, maybe?

I find this really interesting, Leum, because I’m like the complete reverse of you! I’ve pretty much been an atheist since I was vomited out of the collective unconscious, but it’s GODS I have a resistance to, not religion, and only applied to me.

As for supernatural entities… well, I don’t BELIEVE in them. I just have this nagging worry that they believe in me. But that’s mental illness for you, I suppose. You get all sorts of crazy shit and just have to accept its your neurons having quite the lively atittude.

kittehserf
6 years ago

As for supernatural entities… well, I don’t BELIEVE in them. I just have this nagging worry that they believe in me.

They do.

LBT
LBT
6 years ago

*SNRK* Yeah, one of our roommates required an intro to all the system members, which led to the following discussion of Falcon:

Me: Yeah, he’s this old geezer, been coming here for twelve years, claims he was a Protector of Children until he got fired for misuse of office equipment…

Roommate: …So he’s a guardian angel.

Me: What? No!

Roommate: Dude. This old guy, won’t tell you anything, comes from… somewhere… as a Protector of Children…

Me: NOT THE SAME.

Roommate: Guardian. Angel.

Me: SHUT UP HE’S JUST THIS OBNOXIOUS OLD GIT WHO NEVER TELLS ME ANYTHING AND SHACKS UP ON MY COUCH. THERE IS NOTHING WEIRD ABOUT THAT.

Roommate: …sure, buddy.

kittehserf
6 years ago

::snicker::

Now I’m seeing Falcon-as-played-by-Alan-Rickman.

closetpuritan
6 years ago

Since both atheism and theism are in fact statements about reality, what *should* matter is which of those are true. I absolutely don’t think the truth should be sacrificed for the sake of functionality, be that social or psychological functions.

“Should” is a matter of opinion. I agree with you, but to an unconscious, amoral universe, there is no “should”. And particularly with atheists from a certain time period (I think I’ve mostly seen it in 19th-century writers) there are atheists as well as religious people who feel that, for the general population, we should encourage religion in order to encourage morality, even though they personally didn’t believe in God or an afterlife.

language, the most basic unit of human thought,
I occasionally come across this claim. Yet I have thoughts that I have trouble putting into words sometimes. And why would animals and babies be able to have thoughts without words, but not human children and adults?

I think in Leum’s case, ID’ing as a Buddhist probably is a more accurate snapshot of beliefs than ID’ing as an atheist. But I’ve never been tempted for long to not ID as an atheist due to particular atheists being jerks. One reason is “Why should they get to keep the label?” But more importantly, I think of my experience with people saying “X group aren’t really Christians…” In this case, it’s a matter of “leaving” the group rather than being “kicked out”, but it seems dishonest. [Dawkins, Hitchens, etc.] and I are still both atheists, because we still both don’t believe in god(s) or belong to a religion. Just as Unitarian Universalism and Christian fundamentalism and strict Catholicism and “cafeteria” Catholicism are all places that Christian beliefs can lead, my beliefs and Richard Dawkins’ beliefs and Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s beliefs are all possible places that atheist beliefs can lead.

***

I’m on the third book of a (pretty good) trilogy right now (The Hundred Thousand Kingdoms) that includes people who know gods exist, but don’t “believe” in them. They call themselves “primortalists” (though that doesn’t show up until the third book). The main character of the first book is a female warrior from a society where the women are warriors (and men are the last line of defense, as well as children’s primary caregivers). I’m sure the MRAs would love that, particularly V.D.

Fibinachi
6 years ago

Ooh, that’s a lovely book series. I recommend it heartily.

I also recommend The Thousand Names, which I just finished, but I don’t recommend The Left Hand of God or anything but Scott Westerfield. I did find the Black Company to be enjoyable though.

And that’s an update from Fibinachi’s Booklist This Week.

Octo
Octo
6 years ago

“One is that I started practicing Buddhism, and even though I don’t believe its supernatural claims, I… “want” is to strong of a word; I’d like to, maybe?”
I can certainly see the temptation. I’m an atheist, but to me an atheist universe is actually kinda depressing, especially the thought of death. The atheist debaters and writers all go on about how that doesn’t bother them, how they’re content with how things are… I smell propagandistic BS. Not *all* of them can feel that way. Personally, I’d rather have some supernatural elements, especially those who would save me from death. I just don’t think there are any.

That being said, Buddhism seems like a strange choice of religion for wanting supernatural elements. It seems to me that most supernatural elements of it (like gods, spirits, mythical past buddhas etc.) are rather like decorum only, with the religion reducable to just, ah, the karmatic mechanism it explains. Plus, while it stipulates rebirth, its goal is to break the cycle of it, and Nirvana rather sounds like a description of secular death to me. Well, I suppose, it would not be something for me, heh.

“I’ve reached a point where I don’t think that language, the most basic unit of human thought, can adequately express anything truly important or real, and it left me very skeptical of the whole enterprise of objective reality.”
That to me is a bit strange line of reasoning, because even if you’re right it wouldn’t mean there’s no objective reality. I could probably mean that objective reality is inaccessible to us humans, but that’s not quite the same. Besides, there are ways and means to overcome the restrictions of human language, even of human intuition. Look at how much of quantum physics is counterintuitive, for example, and yet we have found ways to open up that field – at times by creating entire new forms of communication, like mathematical formulas and equations. So I think, while we will never get things about reality *completely* right, we have way and means to come ever closer to the truth. And even if we hadn’t that wouldn’t mean that objective reality doesn’t exist.

““Should” is a matter of opinion. I agree with you, but to an unconscious, amoral universe, there is no “should”. And particularly with atheists from a certain time period (I think I’ve mostly seen it in 19th-century writers) there are atheists as well as religious people who feel that, for the general population, we should encourage religion in order to encourage morality, even though they personally didn’t believe in God or an afterlife.”
Well of course it’s a matter of opinion! That kind of 19th century atheists had their opinion of religion, I have mine. The universe surely doesn’t care about “shoulds”, no, but that’s exactly why we differentiate between descriptive and normative statements, between “is” and “ought”. And as Hume said, you cannot derive one from the other. So, just because something *is* a certain way doesn’t mean it *should*. In my opinion, a broader focus on truth above other concerns would be good for society. Not because the universe cares (that’s an is statement and hence irrelevant in considering an ought), but because that would be good for society, IMO.

Falconer
6 years ago

One of the quickest ways to make me upset/angry is to talk about how awful it is that religious parents raise their kids in their religion (e.g. Dawkins’ “child abuse” claim, although that’s an extreme example).

Well, some interpretations of religion are really abusive, and I wish those parents would knock it off.

Like, when they tell their kids that they’re damned to Hell just for existing because of “sin nature,” stuff like that.

And the people who beat their children because Michael & Debbie Pearl tell them God ordered them to, they need to knock it off.

And folks who don’t take their seriously ill child to the doctor because they have faith that God will heal them.

That’s not the religion’s fault. There are many loving religious families.

Octo
Octo
6 years ago

Well, of course there are. Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. But, as they say, it takes religion to make good people do bad things. Those people who don’t “spare the rod”? They honestly believe that daily beating their children into submission is doing good work, and in the end good for the children, too – because that is what their religion tells them.

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
6 years ago

Are we really having this conversation again? This is, what, at least the 3rd round?

sparky
sparky
6 years ago

Yes, please, let’s drop this.

People will find all kinds of excuses and justifications for their behavior. Religion can be used to justify rotten behavior. But so can any number of other things.

Leum
Leum
6 years ago

language, the most basic unit of human thought,
I occasionally come across this claim. Yet I have thoughts that I have trouble putting into words sometimes. And why would animals and babies be able to have thoughts without words, but not human children and adults?

That to me is a bit strange line of reasoning, because even if you’re right it wouldn’t mean there’s no objective reality. I could probably mean that objective reality is inaccessible to us humans, but that’s not quite the same.

I guess it’d be more accurate to say not that objective reality doesn’t exist so much as objective reality isn’t what you think it is, by definition, because anything you think isn’t it. As for quantum physics being explained through mathematics and not language, I would argue that mathematics still properly lies under the aegis of language, albeit a weird one.

There are actually theories of cognitive development that suggest that babies don’t think prior to language acquisition; that the reason we can’t remember extremely early childhood and infancy because we lacked language at the time. That said, I don’t deny that we can have flashes of inspiration/intuition that we can’t put in words, the whole point of Buddhist practice is, for me, reaching for those flashes as they relate to… and that’s where words stop.

That being said, Buddhism seems like a strange choice of religion for wanting supernatural elements. It seems to me that most supernatural elements of it (like gods, spirits, mythical past buddhas etc.) are rather like decorum only, with the religion reducable to just, ah, the karmatic mechanism it explains. Plus, while it stipulates rebirth, its goal is to break the cycle of it, and Nirvana rather sounds like a description of secular death to me. Well, I suppose, it would not be something for me, heh.

That’s actually one of the things that seperates Therevada and Mahayana Buddhism. Therevada’s Nirvana is basically identical* with secular death, but Mahayana’s is not. Nirvana is a fundamentally undescribable state of being, and questions of whether existence continues or not after parinirvana (the death of an enlightened one) tend to be answered either a) who cares? or b) absolutely.

*For a given value of that. Dead Arahats are nowhere to be found in the cosmos, but the question of what happens to a Buddha after death is unanswerable

Also, it’s important to be wary of describing the devas, realms of being, etc as decorum as they are absolutely not treated that way by traditional Buddhists; Western Buddhists tend to like doing it and presenting Buddhism as a philosophy and not a religion, but the supernatural elements beyond karma show up in the very earliest texts. I think it’s possible to do Buddhism without those things (since, y’know, I do), but for those of us who do we need to remember that what we’re doing isn’t distilliing Buddhism to its pure form but something more akin to what Bishop Spong does with Christianity.

closetpuritan
6 years ago

Yeah, I have to disagree that *only* religion can make good people do bad things. People do bad things because they think it will achieve a moral good, but there are nonreligious ideologies that get them to do that. E.g. right now there’s a lot of discussion about the tactics of Social Justice Warriors and whether/how often they cross the line into this phenomenon.

emilygoddess
emilygoddess
6 years ago

Part of what makes this conversation even muddier is the way some people use atheism to mean both “not believing in god(s)” and “not practicing a religion”, when – although there is significant overlap – the two are not interchangeable.

Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. But, as they say, it takes religion to make good people do bad things.

Do you really believe that (1) people are either inherently good or inherently bad, and (2) religion is the only thing that can make an inherently “good” person go against their nature?

Because I can’t accept either of those premises, especially the first one. Reducing complex, fallible human beings to “good” or “bad” just makes me really uncomfortable, especially given how easily some people move from identifying “bad” people to dehumanizing and abusing them.

In my opinion, a broader focus on truth above other concerns would be good for society.

And I think whether people are being kind to each other is more important than why. I’m more worried about whether everyone has what they need than what they’re doing on Sunday morning/Friday night/the full moon/etc.

opium4themasses
opium4themasses
6 years ago

I dunno about Buddhism for myself. The concept of karma can be used as the worst iteration of Just World fallacies. That baby with cancer isn’t suffering because the world is amoral. No, that baby must have been mean in a past life.
I do understand this interpretation is not universal, but this is my problem with the concept.

I tend to be much more pragmatic about religious practice. I might find a lot of it silly, but then the arcane knowledge I have about my interests are silly to others. If people use their religion to inspire themselves to make the world a better place, then I commend them.

I like the focus Pope Francis is taking even if I disagree with him on many, many points.

Yay for being OT even within my own rant.

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
6 years ago

I’m inclined to think that religion is less the cause of shitty behavior than it is the excuse that people give for doing the shitty things that they already wanted to do.

Leum
Leum
6 years ago

@cassandrakitty: one of the saddest things about anti-abolitionists prior to the civil war, and a handful of homophobic Christians today, is that there were then people who said, “I wish I could oppose slavery, it seems utterly vile, but the Bible commands it so I have to concede it’s moral.” And I have seen Christians say that they’d like to support same-sex marriage but can’t because the Bible forbids it.

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
6 years ago

And you believed them?

Leum
Leum
6 years ago

Well, since some of them are themselves gay and really torn up about it and hate themselves for it, yes.

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
6 years ago

And some of them are full of shit and using the Bible as an excuse for their bigotry.

kittehserf
6 years ago

Seconding everything emilygoddess said here.

Leum
Leum
6 years ago

Some are, but quite honestly, homophobia in the US is a Christian phenomenon. It isn’t just backed by Christian doctrine, it’s rooted in Christian doctrine. There’s a reason the atheist community is one of the biggest non-LGBT groups that supports LGBT rights en masse. And there really are Christians who would be perfectly happy to fully support LGBT people if they could get around the scriptural and doctrinal rules prohibiting it.

My undergrad advisor, for example, is a devout progressive Catholic who fully supports LGBT legal rights, but not same-sex marriage within the Catholic Church and it’s very clear from an extremely awkwad conversation I overheard her have that this makes her uncomfortable but that she sees no way around it; it’s the reason I haven’t come out to her, tbh.

In all honesty, even the good Christians often can’t fully escape this. John Shore started a project called “Not All Like That” where he asked Christians to affirm that it’s okay to be LGBT. But when I pointed out that nowhere on his site did he explicitly say same-sex sexual relationships were okay, he was confused at the idea that this needed to be explicitly said and refused to change it. Ultimately, I’ve found only a handful of cishet Christians who seem to fully get it. For the most part, the rule seems to be “Christian, cishet, not a homophobe or transphobe: pick two.”

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
6 years ago

Religions are created by people, and pretty much everyone picks and chooses which bits of their holy book to prioritize and which bits to quietly ignore. If lots of Christians are homophobic, I don’t think it’s because the religion is making them be that way. If those people wanted a less homophobic version of their faith then it’s not as if they couldn’t find one.

I’m not saying that lots of churches don’t try to push their members in that direction, because they do, I’m saying that it’s ultimately up to the individual whether or not they’re going to accept that or go find a less toxic denomination/congregation to belong to.

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
6 years ago

Example! Part of my family is Catholic. They all know that one of my cousins is gay. None of them care. They’ve chosen to give the church’s teaching on homosexuality about as much weight as they give to the rules about what kind of fiber their clothes can be made out of (or the policy on contraception, which they also ignore). People need to take responsibility for the ways they choose to interpret their religion, they can’t just say “well this makes me uncomfortable but God/my priest says I have to believe it so (shrugs)”.

LBT
LBT
6 years ago

RE: Kittehs

Now I’m seeing Falcon-as-played-by-Alan-Rickman.

You are a cruel, cruel woman, you know that? Thanks for making the geezer even worse.

RE: Octo

I’m an atheist, but to me an atheist universe is actually kinda depressing, especially the thought of death.

Really? I’ve always found my insignificance deeply reassuring. There’s no fiery hell awaiting me, no gross heaven where I can only enjoy myself if I accept that other people are suffering. No judgement, just a completely disinterested universe. Sure, it may not actively be trying to help me… but it’s not actively trying to harm me either, and at this point in my life, that sounds fuckin’ fantastic. The past couple years, I don’t know if I could’ve survived them had I not been able to rest assured that it was nothing personal, just entropy in effect. I find my cosmic tininess a source of deep comfort.

RE: Leum

There are actually theories of cognitive development that suggest that babies don’t think prior to language acquisition;

The fuck? There are plenty of nonverbal people in the world, and I am quite certain that they can think! If people couldn’t think until they acquire language, how would we have developed language at all?

RE: emilygoddess

some people use atheism to mean both “not believing in god(s)” and “not practicing a religion”, when – although there is significant overlap – the two are not interchangeable.

YES. That’s what irritates me. Two completely different things! Ask the poor bastards who practice Falun Gong. Or the UUs. Hell, even I might be able to tolerate the UU church…

LBT
LBT
6 years ago

RE: Cassandrakitty

My personal favorite story regarding religion was when I met my mother-in-law, who is a devout Southern Baptist. She was totally fine with me being gay. It was me being atheist that slightly threw her! (At which point hubby immediately gave her a stiff talking to and she hastily recanted and apologized quite nicely.)

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
6 years ago

@ LBT

My granny, who’s OK with me being a feminist, and was OK with the purple hair period and the hanging out with boys with long hair and tattoos and the atheism and all of that stuff, finally had her “this is a bridge to far!” moment over my decision not to change my name when I got married, of all things. You can never quite predict what issues people are going to freak out about.

vaiyt
6 years ago

I call bullshit on that. Religion is a convenient excuse for bigotry, but there’s plenty of atheists who keep their bigotry AND the religious excuses for it, just crossing God out. If you try to point out that doing away with religion necessarily means doing away with religion-backed morality, they go ballistic.

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
6 years ago

@ vaiyt

Who are you talking to?

LBT
LBT
6 years ago

RE: Cassandrakitty

My granny… had her “this is a bridge to far!” moment over my decision not to change my name when I got married, of all things. You can never quite predict what issues people are going to freak out about.

I know, right? Thankfully, my mother-in-law is a very polite, kind woman, so she didn’t act like a dick to me, she was just taken aback. (And that was still plenty enough for my husband to give her that talking-to.) So I’m able to laugh about it, rather than be offended.

And then you have my granny, who is a racist old Southern belle… but is pretty much fine with me being trans and queer. A little confused on the matter, but she probably took the news best of all my extended family. (She replied, “I knew already,” in this affronted tone, as though I’d insulted her intelligence. Then she told me, “I watch Oprah, dear. You should watch more TV; you’ll learn a lot.”)

LBT
LBT
6 years ago

So I’m able to laugh about it, rather than be offended.

Er, I meant that as in, I’m able to laugh about it because she didn’t have the power to hurt me, and she didn’t try. I didn’t mean to phrase this as though to say being offended isn’t justified in the case of people being a dick to you about your religion or lack of such. <.<

opium4themasses
opium4themasses
6 years ago

I agree that religion is more often an asshat’s alibi than a proximate cause.

About the atheists being more accepting of LGBTQ, I have to call bullshit. I have seen a number of atheists defend homophobia with secular and/or naturalistic bullshit. A lot of these same guys are MRAs as well.

So perhaps as a percentage, but only slightly. Toxic masculinity and gender roles inform interpretations of facts and holy books.

titianblue
titianblue
6 years ago

Can’t we let this conversation die? There are asshats of all religions and of none. And asshats will use whatever excuses they can find to justify their asshat-ishness, whether those excuses are the will/word of God/gods or their supposedly vulcan logic.

Fuck’em all and their cruel & heartless arrogance, say I.

kittehserf
6 years ago

There are actually theories of cognitive development that suggest that babies don’t think prior to language acquisition;

The fuck? There are plenty of nonverbal people in the world, and I am quite certain that they can think! If people couldn’t think until they acquire language, how would we have developed language at all?

Not to mention that it’s freaking obvious non-human animals think, and recognise elements of human language. Nice bit of toxic anthropocentrism in all this language = thinking stuff.

reason we can’t remember extremely early childhood and infancy because we lacked language at the time

Too broad a generalisation. Some people do. Some people (like me) have very patchy memories of our lives long after language acquisition.

some people use atheism to mean both “not believing in god(s)” and “not practicing a religion”, when – although there is significant overlap – the two are not interchangeable.

YES. That’s what irritates me. Two completely different things!

Yep. That irritates me enormously, too. I don’t fit in any of the reductionist boxes, kthnx.

@ vaiyt

Who are you talking to?

Octo and/or Leum, at a guess, with the “good people do bad things cos religion” and the whole “religion makes people homophobic when they wouldn’t be otherwise” stuff.

Then she told me, “I watch Oprah, dear. You should watch more TV; you’ll learn a lot.”

LOL!

About the atheists being more accepting of LGBTQ, I have to call bullshit. I have seen a number of atheists defend homophobia with secular and/or naturalistic bullshit. A lot of these same guys are MRAs as well.

Exactly. Plus the whole stew of misogyny that plays out every fucking week in movement atheism, at least in the US (which is what I mostly read about). Oh yeah, it’s only religion that makes people into bigoted turds.

Damn, anyone seen my eyes? They’ve rolled out again.

Octo
Octo
6 years ago

“I guess it’d be more accurate to say not that objective reality doesn’t exist so much as objective reality isn’t what you think it is, by definition, because anything you think isn’t it. As for quantum physics being explained through mathematics and not language, I would argue that mathematics still properly lies under the aegis of language, albeit a weird one.”
But the point is that we adapted. There was an insufficiency in our language, so we extended our language – and, that’s important, to the point where we could even overcome our wrong intuition about what is “logical” and what isn’t. I think that speaks well of our ability to adapt our language/communication. Not perfectly, of course, but the point is not perfection anyway: We will never be able to comprehend 100% of objective reality. But we can come ever closer. And I mean, we make de facto statements about reality all the time: It’s currently dark outside here. Tomorrow will be friday. I’m sitting at a desk. And so on. Now, it is of course possible all those statements are actually wrong, but it would not be very practical to assume that. I think it is most pragmatical to assume we can make and test statements about reality… and that would include religious statements then.

“Do you really believe that (1) people are either inherently good or inherently bad, and (2) religion is the only thing that can make an inherently “good” person go against their nature?”
Hm, yes, that “it takes religion” part, as if religion were *required* for that, was a bit unfortunate. Of course, other factors can have the same effect: Ideologies, concepts of “honour” and so on. But the point is, so can religion. And while I don’t think there are *inherently* good or bad people, I do think there are people… well, some people who are more ruthless, more ambitious, more self-centred and so on and on the other hand people who are more caring, more mindful of others and so on. There are different personalities, and according to those personalities some people will rather tend to do “bad” stuff than others. I mean, surely, you must have thought about some people “What asshole!” or “I’m not surprised somebody like him/her would do that”, or something to that effect.

“If those people wanted a less homophobic version of their faith then it’s not as if they couldn’t find one. ”
That seems a bit simplistic to me. After all, people aren’t just raised in a religion, broadly speaking. They are in fact raised in a specific version of their faith. Of course, some people, as I’ve argued above, will always be assholes, religion or not. But I do think others will take on negative and hurtful opinions, despite being nice people at the core, specifically because that is what their religion tells them – or their version of their religion.

“Really? I’ve always found my insignificance deeply reassuring. There’s no fiery hell awaiting me, no gross heaven where I can only enjoy myself if I accept that other people are suffering. No judgement, just a completely disinterested universe.”
It isn’t about insignificance or a caring universe. I freely admit for me it’s much simpler and less sophisticated: I don’t want to end to exist. That’s all there is to it. I mean, think about it… or rather not, since it’s IMO depressing: You can only observe the universe from one subjective point of view, your own. So, if that point of view ceases… and with all memories, and really everything about you… it is as if you’ve never lived in the first place. From your own point of view, that is, but hence my stress why that PoV is the only important one. Death is eradication of existence, and that is what I find depressing.