“Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called ‘diversity’ actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist.”—Ron Paul
There’s no point in calling yourself oppressed as a woman in the west when
you’re a product of a middle or upper class family,
you have internet access, a tv, a phone, ipod or electronic device
you have the freedom of choosing who you want to love or date,
you have the option of going to college,
you can get a job
you can get a car
you can buy your own house or rent an apartment,
you can purchase birth control
you can choose to not have a job
you can purchase cheap or expensive items without anyone’s consent
you can choose where you want to travel to near or far
you can decide to dress however you want
you can own your own property
you can have any sort of career from being anything from a lawyer, doctor, psychologist, teacher, nurse, manager, assistant, secretary, CEO, government representative, economist, scientist, anthropologist, business owner, etc
I don’t understand why you try to factor in ‘rape’ or ‘domestic abuse’ when we have all of these rights, privileges and achievements as women.
What’s scarier is the fact that you’re trying to act as though your first world,
“Aww, my boyfriend cheated on me,”
“Aww, everyone’s picking on me because I’m fat,”
“Aww, my period sucks,”
“Aww, they ran out of tampons,”
”Aww, no one likes my hairy legs, pussy and armpits,”
”Aww, people won’t stop looking at my breasts,”
“Aww, my feet hurt from wearing these heels,”
“Aww, my acne won’t go away,”
”Aww, I’m too tired to look pretty today” -
- problems weigh in equally to the problems of oppression in the middle east where women don’t have the LUXURY of acting like spoiled brats.
You know what I haven’t talked about in a while? Abortion. Mostly because it’s a settled issue. The pro-abortion crowd is wrong despite their insistence that abortions are necessary, desirable, morally permissable, and otherwise unobjectionable. They can’t make their case to save their lives—and when they try, they’re ultimately reduced to an argument of “We want to kill in utero beings just for the hell of it.”
I can already see the steam coming out the ears out of the leftist pro-borts that seem almost eager to embrace the idea that sexual irresponsibility is best dealt with by killing an in utero being. Oh, the things they’ll tell themselves to convince themselves of it—“it’s not human,” “we’re doing that kid a favor,” “who else is going to take care of it,” “what about rape,” blah blah blah—the same old tired arguments they’ve been making since 1973 that all fall flat on their face under even the slightest amount of scrutiny.
I find it interesting that anti-abortion measures aren’t being met with as much opposition anymore. South Dakota passed a harmless (though it’s being called “the most restrictive”) abortion bill that federally-funded Planned Abortionhood, amongst other left-wing mouthpieces, is all ticked off about. I don’t know why—if a chick in South Dakota wants an abortion she’s got six bordering states that can supply her with one. Or, just wait three days and give lip service to a counseling center and then still get her abortion.
In fact, how does this bill even really “restrict” abortion at all? What, it’s now less convenient to get an abortion? Why don’t I hear any pro-borts making that argument? Or, is it that they don’t want to use “convenient” and “abortion” in the same sentence—since that’s what 99.999% percent of abortions are? “Get rid of this inconvenient burden I brought entirely upon myself.” I mean, that’s abortion in a nutshell, right folks?
Anyway, I find it interesting that we’re not seeing much mention of this in the mainstream media. Have they abandoned the cause in the face of an exponentially growing sentiment that maybe abortion isn’t as great as folks once said it was? Isn’t there better, more pressing news to cover such as our Present-In-Chief sending $600mil+ in warships kinetic action ships to Libya for a fight we don’t have a reason to give a damn about?
Oh, who even cares what that dimwit is even doing (or, more appropriately, not doing) anymore. God knows we’re all just counting down the days until the next election and/or his own vice-president impeaches him.
Why bring up Obama in a post about abortion, you might be wondering? Well, maybe you’re not wondering—I do like to kick the President while he’s down. But actually, there is a good reason. See, the subject of abortion has had a lot less publicity lately because of the growing public resentment towards it. But when I do see it pop up, I’ve been seeing it a lot in one of two contexts: 1) that Planned Parenthood is a criminal enterprise (which we already knew); and 2) that a lot of the current beef with abortion is that it seems to be targeting the black community.
The word that the anti-abortion community is using is “genocide.” That’s come under some fire—but honestly, IS there a better word for it? National statistics claim that 36% of abortions are from the black community, despite blacks only being 13% of the national population. It’s no secret that the black community is most affected by abortions—we don’t need stats for that. Hell, that psychotic quack in Philly was making a killing (no pun intended) for years off of it. So it makes one wonder—why isn’t there a HUGE outcry from the black community against abortion?
Well, I don’t know—but I did see an ad today that—I don’t know if the “black community” came up with it or not, but man it makes a powerful statement:
For sake of candor, it should be noted that the same people who were behind this ad (conceived, by the way, by a black guy… in case that matters to you)—which was pulled after pressure and protests by the “freedom-loving, choice-respecting” pro-abortion crowd. Was the ad wrong though? ISN’T that the most dangerous place for an African-American these days?
It’s no secret that the majority of race-minority and white-guilt voters voted for Obama solely on the basis of his skin color. God knows there’s enough right-wing exposés and Jay Leno skits to prove it. It was an important election, they said. A historic election. A time in which America could finally close the book on racism once and for all. And yet, the black community continues, and the American left supports the widespread killing of these possible future leaders.
Now, I know what you pro-borts are thinking: “This is no different than saying every abortion is killing the next Mozart, or the next Hitler.” And yeah, that dismissive argument has some merit against the rhetoric of the anti-abortion crowd—BUT you have to keep in mind the disproportionate amount of black abortions. With the numbers as staggeringly high as it is for blacks when it comes to abortion isn’t it kind of realistic that this ad is right? That “every 21 minutes our next possible [black] leader is aborted?”
Who would support that? Least of all in the black community?
Unless, of course, the black pro-bort community doesn’t believe that their future children could ever achieve such success. Who here wants to make that argument?
“I want smaller government, I want less government intrusion. I want them to stop shitting on my money and your money and tax dollars that we give fifty percent of every year… I hate the government, okay? I’m apolitical. Write that down. I’m not a Republican.”—
~ Bruce Willis (Hollywood Hitlist, February, 2006)
If what you asked was designed to be social commentary, consider thyself served. tumblr.com/xum1xp8… — Logical Regards, IIF
While my post wasn’t making a social commentary, it was stemming from a social observation. I HAVE NEVER MET A LIBERTARIAN WHO WASN’T WHITE + WEALTHY. I don’t think it’s a fucking problem if I want to ask why that is & if there’s anyone who doesn’t fit the mold.
The best part about posting that question has been all these rando hyper-defensive ‘tarians who’ve inexplicably come out of the woodwork to “serve” me. ps; you guys should stop tokenizing that one Black libertarian you met that one time.
You just asked if anybody had ever met any libertarians “of color,” and they told you they did, so now they’re “tokenizing” them?
Perhaps you might consider not stereotyping all libertarians as “white and wealthy?” And then characterizing any minorities who have to reveal their minority status because they apparently weren’t acting oppressed enough as “coming out of the woodwork?” Oh, what’s that stupid line liberals always use… the world is bigger than you and me.
You know what’s annoying? Road construction. We’ve all had to deal with it at one point or another. In the States though, it’s an agonizing process that seems to take months while slowing us down on a daily basis. Whether it’s that guy in the orange vest flipping around the STOP/SLOW sign; or those flashing orange barrels turning four lanes into three, three lanes into two, two lanes into one; or the portable billboard that tells you when a street is going to be closed; or the godforsaken detour sign—it’s annoying.
I’ve been slow to get to the office a few times this month because of the construction slowdowns on the I-15. Now, granted, it’s a big project and they have to try and work amongst all us commuters trying to get from A to B—but still. Is this a thing that should take months and months and months to complete?
Now, we all know the all-too-true stereotype of public works construction workers. He’s the fat slob in a hard hat sitting on a jersey barrier shoving a cheese sandwich into his mouth just looking at you doing absolutely nothing while you’re at a dead standstill in the midst of a road construction project. And he does that because he KNOWS he can get away with it. He’s government and/or he’s union—he works when he feels like it (but gets paid all the same). Hell, forget just lazing about—he could be in a crane, drunk, and drop a twelve ton girder on a packed school bus and his job would be safe and his pension intact.
And let’s not forget the little rat-faced bureaucrats in their cheap suits spinning red tape around the May-day pole. Half the road’s torn up, but oh wait—we have to stop to contemplate the newest environmental impact statement. We’re down to one lane, but oh wait—it’s raining, and that’s unsafe working conditions. Traffic’s at a standstill, but oh wait—suddenly there’s a problem with the building permits. Plus, there’s about twenty different government acronyms suddenly butting in claiming that Form 26B wasn’t filled out in triplicate and thus work must stop while fines are assessed and the paperwork is straightened out. Oh and god damn it, now the workers won’t work because they suddenly don’t like their dental plan.
About three years ago, I wrote a post on another site wondering why 9/11 ground zero was, after seven years, without significant development.
It’s been seven YEARS. I can’t look at a modern New York skyline without missing those towers. I can’t see a pre-9/11 movie with the twin towers in the background without feeling a combination of sadness and rage. But instead of building our “Freedom Tower”—we’ve bickered for over a half a decade. Bickered over designs. Bickered over zoning. Bickered over the potential for future terrorist attack. Bickered over how it might affect nearby business. Bickered over costs. Bicker bicker bicker. Instead of building a monument to America’s resolve in the face of these cowardly attacks, we bicker. What the hell is WRONG with people?
The answer: bureaucracy.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: any time—ANY TIME—the government gets involved in something, it makes it costly, inefficient, unproductive, and wasteful. With a bunch of different agencies all bickering with each other, coupled with a lazy entitlement-drunk workforce that doesn’t actually answer to anyone, coupled with politicians defending this nonsense to get their kickbacks in the form of votes—is it any surprise why American road construction seems perpetual and unending?
Now, let’s contrast that with privatization.
In a private company, one does not have the luxury of lazing about or dragging things out. They work for profit, and thus must satisfy the demands of their financiers in a timely matter. They operate under service contracts that have strict terms and conditions and hold them liable if they, to use a relevant colloquialism, get caught sleeping on the job. But most importantly, when the price is right—you’d damn surprised at what they can get done when they put their minds to it.
One such company I was thoroughly impressed with today is the West Nippon Expressway Company Ltd., a company founded by privatization of the former Japan Highway Public Corporation.
Now, I could talk at length about how privatization benefits the world exponentially more than any government-funded, government-run, government-controlled bureaucratic nonsense by and as a result of profit-driven ends; competition; merit-based hiring practices; accountability; etc etc. But instead, let’s just see it in action.
Some of you may have heard that an earthquake hit Japan recently. Among the devastation, the Great Kanto Highway in Naka was totally destroyed.
In just six days—SIX DAYS—IN A COUNTRY THREATENED BY FOOD SHORTAGES, BLACKOUTS, TENS OF THOUSANDS DEAD, AND THE POSSIBILITY OF RADIOACTIVE FALLOUT—Nexco accomplishes this:
This is the result when a private company takes action to solve a problem. This is what is achieved when government officials, bureaucracy, red tape, union labor, and entitlement-baby workers get the hell out of the way of private industry.
In America, it would take six days just to decide to form a committee to petition the transportation bureau for permits and funding to begin work. Meanwhile, the average citizen would be lucky if work actually started in six months. Work that would likely take six years to complete.
are hazardous to the health/well being of the worker
Because of this, due to the simple law of supply and demand, this positions pay more contributing to a “wage gap.” But here’s the thing: the gap only exists if you leave out EVEN MORE THINGS.
One way they cleverly make people believe the wage gap exists is by lumping in ALL positions with one another. Anyone who knows anything about a mathematical curve knows that extremes tend to skew data. So when you put a woman receptionist, a woman librarian, etc. with people like Bill Gates, Lebron James, etc. the data obviously gets very skewed.
It also does not factor that more women are part time workers than men. Which, when you think of it, feminists are basically saying “I want to be paid the same amount/more while doing less work than HE has to for the same amount.”
Also, shit like this:
“Those who believe that the male-female wage differential is the result of labor market discrimination sometimes suggest that a ‘comparable worth’ pay structure be introduced to eliminate the gender wage gap. Under a comparable worth pay system, jobs are rated according using a number of criteria such as: educational requirements, manual dexterity requirements, job stress, risk of injuries, etc. Jobs that have similar ratings are assigned the same pay. Advocates of such a system suggest that this system results in equal pay for equivalent work. Some studies, for example, have suggested that secretaries and truck drivers are ‘comparable’ jobs. Both involve long periods of sitting, similar amounts of training, and repetitive tasks. Therefore, it is argued, the pay of secretaries (a female-dominated occupation) should be equal to the pay of truck drivers (a male-dominated occupation).” - http://www.swlearning.com/economics/policy_debates/gender.html
SECRETARIES AND TRUCK DRIVERS ARE THE SAME THING EVERYONE! IT’S COOL! NO BIG DEAL!
Seriously, just read through these links. The stuff is insane as well as hilarious. Feminists don’t know anything about math. Also, they’re fucking crazy.
I’m usually not a huge fan of propaganda, and very rarely a sucker to it—but I gotta say, the Tea Party came out with a pretty good piece today. I read somewhere that the Koch Brothers financed this one, which’ll probably drive some liberals to roll their eyes and immediately dismiss it… but I tend to look more at the message than who’s sending it. You should too—whatever side of the fence you’re on.
Sidenote—you notice how the ones with the really big debt are… um… primarily blue states? Think there’s anything to that? Anyone? Anyone???
Also, you know… it’s been reported pretty heavily (though, not by any mainstream media—that’s for damned sure) about how Wisconsin (and other states following suit) was really a blow to the left wing. But I think the blow isn’t so much to their socialist ideology as it is to them as a group. I posted yesterday to a forum on the subject:
I mean, in every frickin’ instance you can point to the liberals are coming apart at the seams. Every single aspect of their ideology is imploding on itself and biting them in the ass - and they are going absolutely ballistic over it. The nation - the world - is finally starting to see them for what they are.
I think that’s really how Wisconsin hurt them. Because, man oh man, when you see some of the footage of how violent and vicious and psychotic these leftists are when they don’t get their way—well, its exposes them. Especially when they talk blatantly from the other side of their mouths about “peace,” “tolerance,” and “civility.” And while the mainstream media tries to shuffle it under the rug, I think more and more they’re realizing that they can’t stop the information from getting to people. They can’t stop people from seeing how these vitriol-spewing, raging liberals act. What they say, and what they do, and who they are, and who their ideology makes them. This is the side of the fence that is going totally berserk—making death threats, vandalizing property, and—yeah, I’m going to stick “shooting congresswomen” in there with it (because you can say that dude was crazy—but he was leftist crazy).
And the worst part for them is, they can’t seem to stop. Every inch of ground they lose seems to make them even more desperate and incensed. That they keep losing it faster, and more at a time, is only more infuriating to them.
The propaganda piece ends on a particularly sour note for liberals, which I think is the most upsetting fact about it to them—mostly because I don’t think they expected it. “This Tea Party AIN’T OVER YET.” Never mind the fact that simply saying the words “tea party” immediately sends the left (including Obama himself) into a frothing blood-rage—but I don’t think the left ever expected this band of rabble-rousing upstarts to gain so much strength and support so quickly. They were so unprepared for it, so blindsided, caught by such surprise that it forced an immediate visceral reaction out of them—and thus left them exposed for all the world to see, in all its grisly horror.
And I think it’s only a matter of time before they take their rage to the next level. And when they do—they’ll be done. When the nation and the world finally sees them with actual blood on their hands, there will be no coming back for them.
Any other form of entitlement program or government handout.
I do, however, support the single most important, if not only, human right: The individual’s right to his/her life. Entailing self-ownership, self-governance, and self-propagation.
We owe nothing to anyone but ourselves. Our duty is to our ego, to our existence, to our self. And that compels us to assume total and complete responsibility of our actions, our decisions, and our thoughts.
Life owes us nothing, not even life itself is a guarantee, and therefore the sole responsibility we, the living, have is to procure and preserve our own life.
<end self-righteous message/>
This is not to say that I’m some sort of Randian or that I believe in selfishness as a virtue, but under the law, yes, this is all true.
The leftists who are so indignantly reblogging this post don’t seem to have the brain capacity to be able to distinguish between society and government. If they like or want something, their tiny brains only allow them to see by force. It never occurs to them that they ought to do things themselves. It’s always by the violent force of government that their goals are accomplished.
And for anyone to disagree means that they are some sort of -ist and ought to be burned at the stake for their heresy.
I know I haven’t been adding a lot of unique commentary to reblogs lately, but haven’t really needed to since I seem to have discovered a niche of college-aged bloggers who actually don’t have their heads up their asses. Here’s to hope for the next generation.
The unstated premise that nature is nice lies behind many of the objections to the Darwinian theory of human sexuality. Carefree sex is natural and good, it is assumed, so if someone claims that men want it more than women do, it would imply that men are mentally healthy and women neurotic and repressed. That conclusion is unacceptable, so the claims that men want carefree sex more than women do cannot be correct. Similarly, sexual desire is good, so if men rape for sex (rather than to express anger towards women), rape would not be as evil. Rape is evil; therefore the claim that men rape for sex cannot be correct. More generally, what people instinctively like is good, so if people like beauty, beauty would be a sign of worth. Beauty is not a sign of worth, so the claims that people like beauty cannot be correct.
These kinds of arguments combine bad biology (nature is nice), bad psychology (the mind is created by society), and bad ethics (what people like is good). Feminism would lose nothing by giving them up.
“Gentlemen, once you’ve graduated from college and are well into your 20s, I encourage you to hit the singles scene and try to find a woman your age who can cook, manage her personal finances and has both the know-how and motivation to properly maintain a household. You’ll have better luck (and probably more fun) searching for nickels on a busy interstate. Now, before any female readers shout “misogynist,” think for a moment — the standard I’m imposing is no more sexist than the one being mourned by Hymowitz. Women, for all of their successes and achievements in the last 40 years, still want a man who’s ambitious, driven and capable of taking charge of his life and his relationships, because that’s what women have looked for in a man since the dawn of time. Well, guess what? What we look for in a woman hasn’t changed a whole lot either. We want someone who can support us emotionally, be a mother to our children and can keep the cave tidy while we’re out hunting woolly mammoths. Spending my free time drinking and playing Wii isn’t going to make me president any sooner than being chained to a desk 80 hours a week is going to allot you the necessary time to help our kids learn how to read.”—Where Have The Good Women Gone? - AskMen
“A three-day-old human embryo is a collection of 150 cells called a blastocyst. There are, for the sake of comparison, more than 100,000 cells in the brain of a fly. If our concern is about suffering in this universe,”
It isn’t. It’s about doing what’s morally right. Sometimes that requires suffering. I suffer intensely when I obey the speed limit.
“… it is rather obvious that we should be more concerned about killing flies than about killing three-day-old human embryos.”
So size is the factor? If so, the death of an entire class of kindergartners should bother me less than the death of a cow on a ranch for hamburgers. There’s really no difference between a human being and a fly? That’s just plain scary. Someone is forgetting that they were once a blastocyst too.
“Many people will argue that the difference between a fly and a three-day-old human embryo is that a three-day-old human embryo is a potential human being.”
Would anyone argue the opposite? Perhaps a fly is capable of becoming Beethoven too?
“Every cell in your body, given the right manipulations, every cell with a nucleus is now a potential human being.”
Well, we haven’t actually achieved human cloning yet, so this is actually factually wrong. In any event, none of my cells with nuclei will become a human being by any *natural* process. Not under their own power.
“Every time you scratch your nose, you’ve committed a holocaust of potential human beings.”
That’s just silly. Moving on…
“Let’s say we grant it that every three-day-old human embryo has a soul worthy of our moral concern. First of all, embryos at this stage can split into identical twins. Is this a case of one soul splitting into two souls? Embryos at this stage can fuse into a chimera. What has happened to the extra human soul in such a case?”
Yes, that’s a question that is under scrutiny by lots of theologians and MDs right now. We don’t yet have an explanation that everyone agrees on. That doesn’t mean it can’t be found. We also can’t claim total and complete knowledge of the biological processes involved either; our scientific knowledge of twinning is really sketchy and mostly based on conjecture so far.
“This is intellectually indefensible,”
No, it’s not, because the problem is prior. The problem is that there is rational evidence for the existence of the soul. I can’t just say “Oh, there’s a problem here in an extreme case that we haven’t solved” and then say that that disproves the whole thing. Plato deduced the existence of an immaterial spiritual soul without the use of religious faith. Your argument should be with him, not us.
“but it’s morally indefensible given that these notions really are prolonging scarcely endurable misery of tens of millions of human beings.”
Total exaggeration. Going from a potential to a potential to an absolute statement.
“, and because of the respect we accord religious faith,”
Have I used a single religious argument yet? All of this is based on reason, not religion.
“we can’t have this dialogue in the way that we should. I submit to you that if you think the interests of a three-day-old blastocyst trump the interests of a little girl with spinal cord injuries or a person with full-body burns, your moral intuitions have been obscured by religious metaphysics.”
That’s the scariest thing so far, since it’s the same argument the Nazi doctors used: the interests of a Jewish prisoner used for medical experimentation (that will deal her an extremely painful death) are trumped by the interests of German citizens. “Interest” is a rather odd word to use when someone’s life is on the line.
It’s sad to see that the proponents of “reason” are the very ones whose reasonings can’t be trusted.
God bless you!
Now, I’m not a religious man, but if I remember correctly from my days as a Catholic, that’s what we call an open can of whoop-ass.
Is this blog just run by one person? If so, if you don't mind me asking; How old are you, and are you male or female?
I apologize if you've answered these before, I hadn't seen them posted.
Also, good work, I enjoy reading your posts! :D
I agree with both sections of that sentence, unless you’re talking about the “choice” to kill an innocent human being. Then, I disagree with the second half.
“Keep your rosaries off my ovaries!”
Well, I don’t have a rosary. Abortion isn’t always (or even mostly) a religious issue. Nonetheless, assuming I did own one, it wouldn’t be in your ovaries. Frankly, I don’t care what you do with your body. I’m just concerned with what you do to others’ bodies. Your assumption that all pro-lifers are religious is extremely offensive to many.
“My body, my choice!”
See the first comment.
“Age means nothing; knowledge is everything!”
Very few pro-choicers hold this sign, but it just goes to start a debate on infanticide. If age means nothing (and knowledge means everything), do I not have a right to kill a mentally retarded person or an infant? I mean, I’m smarter and older than both, so what’s the big deal, right? This makes absolutely no sense.
“Having a baby shouldn’t be punishment for a contraceptive mishap.”
And a mistake on behalf of the parents should not be a death sentence for the child. Yet, that is exactly what abortion does.
“Choose Your Life.”
I actually agree with this sign. Of course, I believe every human should be able to choose their own lives. On the flip side, I don’t think a doctor or a mother should be able to choose the life (or, in this case, death) of another human being.
“We won’t go back!”
This sign is always accompanied with a picture of a coat hanger. Of course, I agree! I’d rather you not kill your child with a coat hanger. The difference is, you care more about the methods of murder than the actual killings themselves. How sad.
“Would you be pro-life if the baby if it were gay/a woman/etc.?”
Yes, we would. I don’t care what race, sex, religious affiliation, political affiliation, or sexual orientation that your baby will (or does) pertain to, I’d just prefer you didn’t kill it.
“Against abortion? Don’t have one.”
“Against slavery? Don’t own one.” Of course, this is illogical and, frankly, unintelligent. Whether or not we should do something is okay, as long as we don’t hurt another human being in the process. This means no slavery or abortion, as both hurt (and one directly kills) human beings.
“Keep your (or ‘the government’s’) hands off my body.”
Certainly, as long as you keep your hands off your fellow humans. I don’t care what you do with your body, until you put your hands on another’s body.
Then it follows that because gender is merely a social construct that I am at liberty to invent my own which I feel I best identify with.
I now identify myself as:
I will be offended if this does not show up on all forms that ask for my gender. I will also be offended when people see me and assume I’m a male because of my facial hair, strong brow, broad shoulders, masculine musculature, and penis. I will very rudely correct them every single time, shouting and harping about how I am actually superawesomebadassubergender and they are asshole gender binarists for assuming I am a ‘he’ due to all of my masculine features, male genitalia, and XY chromosomes.
Also, I demand gender neutral pronouns for myself! I demand that all languages change themselves to make ME happy. Here are my gender neutral pronouns for all superawesomebadassubergendered peoples:
“He/she/it laughed” would then become “God laughed”
“I called him/her/it“ would then become “I called MyGod”
“His/her/its skin shines” would then become “TheGods skin shines”
“That is his/hers/its“ would then become “That is GODS”
“He likes himself” or “She likes herself” or “It likes itself” would then become “Your God likes Godself”
If people do not begin to follow these simple (and amazing) rules of language I have just spelled out I will be offended. I will also probably start a tumblr so I can post clever (yet ultimately ill-informed and/or misleading) pictures about how society is against me and about how people won’t accept me and need to. I will even call everyone around me some kind of -ist (sexist, gender binarist, etc.)
Imagine if people were actually like that? Wouldn’t that be obnoxious as fu…..OH WAIT THERE ARE PEOPLE LIKE THAT!