Accountability, Ideological Kryptonite

One thing that we have noticed in our life about ideologies is that the first thing any of them do is remove all accountability from their members. Now, please don’t get us wrong, we realize that we’ve been harping on about this quite a lot recently. However this truly is a legitimate and imminent problem from our perspective and as of yet we’ve only really sort of side-stepped around the issue of accountability rather than actually confronted it directly.
The idea of taking responsibility for ones own actions and opinions is one of the core tenets of the values that we hold. It is also one of the things that we most respect. To us it’s less important that your ideas match with ours as it is that your ideas are intellectually consistent and that you accept the logical consequences for them. For instance if one is going to make the claim that women are as equally capable and as strong as a man, then you cannot take positions like  Miss LonelyHearts and claim that it’s the duty of all men to act in ways to make women feel safe, or to not talk to women because it might upset them. Or take positions like Lara’s that if you’re catcalled or groped everyone must immediately jump to your aid.
Or, alternately, you must also apply those same standards to men as well. Which means that we should expect that Miss Lonely Hearts would act in such a way so as to adjust her behaviour to make the men around her feel comfortable and safe. Or that Lara would jump to the aid of a man being touched or sexually harassed by a woman. Does anyone actually think they would do those things though? Somehow I rather doubt that. Though I have no question that they truly believe this to be equality.
Because life is so much easier when you don’t have to deal with reality, intelligent thought, or logic.
In the tradition of the Hebrew Bible it was described that on the tenth day of the seventh month a goat would be cast into the desert. This goat would have the sins of the Israelites confessed to and placed upon its head before Yahweh. After which the Azazel, or scapegoat as it is called in english, was cast into the desert and took the sins away from the Isrealite people never to be seen again. Thus the tribes sins were paid for.
“And Aaron shall lean both of his hands [forcefully] upon the live he goat’s head and confess upon it all the willful transgressions of the children of Israel, all their rebellions, and all their unintentional sins, and he shall place them on the he goat’s head, and send it off to the desert with a timely man.”- Leviticus 16:21
For feminists it’s society and it’s omni-present, yet strangely intangible “patriarchy”. Which is characterized by male-dominated society conferring leadership and power roles onto men as they are held to be the ones naturally suited for such things due to traditional gender roles. Thus meaning that women are held back into roles of subvervience and subjugation or are considered to be less capable or weaker than men because society and those roles tell them they must be so. Such as in Victorian times when the tendency for males in society to be taught to protect young women from the unwanted advancements or attentions of males was seen as treating women like children who were too weak to look after themselves. Thus reinforcing the traditional gender role of women being dependant upon men and being valuable objects that need protection. Or in the more modern examples of feminists like the aforementioned Lara who say that the fact that men don’t step in to help protect women from the unwanted advancements or attentions of males is seen as society’s tolerance and normalizing of degrading and harsh treatment of women. Thus reinforcing the traditional gender role of women being sex objects for use by men.
…………….wait what?
Don’t try to think about it too hard.
As for Christianity,well, as the poem goes “let me count the fucking ways” (paraphrased).
God creates us initially flawed. Then the proto-humans are convinced by an outside force into committing a great sin that damns everyone who comes after them regardless of what they do. God then hands down a series of rules of behaviour that we must obey while his sulphur-smelling lackey goes around tricking and forcing people into breaking his arbitrary rules that we have no control over. God then gives us a messiah by birthing himself through a human and sacrificing himself whether we want it or not. Which forces a debt upon on us which we must pay through obedience to his words and commands. The relationship between Christianity and responsibility for ones actions is like the relationship between Bai Ling and her brother in Gene Generation (look it up damnit).
I could go on with other ideologies or more examples from these ones, but I think you can see the common denominator here. Whether it’s a mighty god who tells us how we must behave, a devil lurking in the shadows whispering at us to tell him to sod off, or society and gender roles telling us to play with dolls instead of hot wheels there must always be a way to avoid personal accountability for ones actions or ideas. Because otherwise they would be open to criticism, and no ideology can survive that.
The website A Voice For Men lists as one of its facts about mens rights that “Women receive custody in about 84% of child custody cases.” According to Lousie Pennington this is, of course, the result of patriarchy.
“It is men who voted against extended paternity leave and men who assume that childcare is the preserve of women. That is the reason women get main residency in cases of divorce: they do the vast majority of the childcare before.”
Which is interesting, and by “interesting” I mean factually false, because prior to feminism it was the father who was awarded custody of the children in the vast result of cases. It was not until feminist Caroline Norton helped to put through the Tender Years Doctrine that it became customary for the woman to be considered the main childcare provider. Mrs. Norton argued in her pamphlet “The Separation of Mother and Child” that to separate a child from it’s own mother was not just an injury to the child, but a literal violation of the laws of nature. She argued that it was simply not possible for a father to ever provide sufficient love and care for their child.
“Does nature say that the woman, who endures for nearly a year a tedious suffering, ending in an agony which perils her life, has no claim to the children she bears ? Does nature say that the woman, who after that year of suffering is over, provides from her own bosom the nourishment which preserves the very existence of her offspring, has no claim to the children she has nursed ? Does nature say that the woman who has watched patiently through the very many feverish and anxious nights which occur even in the healthiest infancy, has no claim to the children she has tended ? And that the whole and sole claim rests with him, who has slept while she watched ; whose knowledge of her suffering is confined to the intelligence that he is a father ; and whose love is at best hut a reflected shadow of that which fills her heart ? No ! the voice of nature cries out against the inhuman cruelty of such a separation. “
 Or, alternately.
“It pronounces the protection of the father insufficient, — it pronounces the estrangement from the mother dangerous and unnatural and such as must be immediately supplied by female guidance of some sort or other.Does not this, of itself, demonstrate the harsh and unjust tenor of the law? Why should the father, whose utmost care is insufficient for the care of his infant children, have power to divide them from the mother, whose care is sufficient ? “
Or really the whole of the eighty-plus pages pamphlet. The entire feminist argument was that only a woman could properly care for her child and that men were incapable of being sufficiently nurturing. Yet when criticized for the results of this sort of thinking modern feminists lay the blame at the feet of “patriarchy” and not the armies of their feminist precursors who stood up in front of the courts and forgers of law and told them exactly that. Take this excerpt from the blog TheRadicalIdea on how “patriarchy” hurts men too.
Fathers During Custody Hearings are less likely to acquire custody of their children.  Courts presume that the mother is the more suitable caretaker because the Patriarchy perpetuates the gender binary in such a way that masculinity becomes divorced from the concepts of care and nurture, while femininity becomes inherently tied to this.  This also harms male children who may be better off with their father than their mother but are given to their mother based on this rigid gender divide.”
Yes, I can’t for the life of me imagine where they got that idea.
That was unusually snarky, vicious, and sarcastic. I might be rubbing off on you. I kind of like that.
Your approval fills me with shame.
I won’t go more into religious or Christian lack of accountability because we already did it twice with the Pope recently. So really, go read those two articles if you want to know what we’re talking about there.
Having an ideological Boogie-man to remove accountability means never having to admit to your critics that you might be at fault. Whether it’s god’s will, the devil’s handiwork, patriarchy, scapegoating, etc, there is always something else to blame. Something else to put the faults of yourself, your tribe, or your society upon so that you never have to accept your own choices as yours (unless it works out good for you, of course).
In order to maintain this though, in the face of growing criticism from rational people or the inevitable effects of increased scientific knowledge and understanding, they must then start to jump through ever-increasingly twisted hoops in order to maintain their views. They’ll say that you can’t really know the mind of god, even though they just spent the last ten nug-humping minutes telling you how great and loving (but not in a creepy abusive boyfriend way) he is. Then it’s a metaphor, though how they know the difference remains a mystery. There’s a scientific conspiracy to suppress teaching the controversy. A conspiracy by mostly-male scientists to prevent womens perspectives from being taught, which is why “strong objectivity” is better than that normal objectivity that everybody else has always used. Because all perceptions are equally valid. And if the critics don’t stop and keep on coming? Well then they’re “misoginists”, “militant atheists”, “rape enablers”, “hate god”, “need to educate themselves”, “show respect and tolerance for others religions” or whatever else they possibly come up with to keep them from actually having to answer to the facts and reason leveled against them.
In other words everyone is right and wrong at the same time. Truth, evidence, facts, reality, are meaningless concepts that we don’t have to take into account because the only thing that fucking matters is that some random asshole wants to believe that it’s true. I can’t even begin to communicate to you how much I can’t stand these people.
Here’s the thing.
A person on reddit once said to me that reality is the ultimate arbiter of truth. To disagree with reality is to simply be wrong. Ideologues do not just disagree with reality, they think they can change it’s very nature by creative thinking and redefinition.
But accountability is the beginning of morality, and I am not referring to accountability in the face of some mythical higher power. I am referring to being accountable to reality, and to the logic and reasoning of the positions you take. The worst of humanity always shines through when you convince them that they hold no responsibility for their actions. It is a very frightening thing to watch a religious person take a religious code that advocates killing others for not being bound to it and truly believe it to be a religion of peace. It means that there is nothing that they can not and will not do to justify their actions or beliefs in their own eyes. Even when faced with all of the evidence in the world that their ideas are wrong they will still cling to the belief that they are right and do anything to make it seem the case. It isn’t the belief that’s bad, the devil made them do it, that’s all. A few prayers, some confession and it’ll all be good.
However how can one truly understand morals if one cannot even countenance the idea that their position can, in fact, be immoral itself?



Family Foundations Fabulous Forty Day Fast Against……Gays

Virginia’s Family Foundation is encouraging its members and Christians all across the country to partake in a forty day fast in protest of laws trying to legalize gay marriage. From the days of Aug. 27 to Oct 5 they hope that all Christians across the country will join with them in the fast.
Ok, so here’s the thing, now don’t get me wrong I have nothing against a little protesting here and there so fast if you want. I’m all about trying to stick it to the man…….ok bad choice of words.  But what exactly is this supposed to achieve guys? Do you think anybody is really going to give a damn about this? I mean anybody besides jackoffs on the internet who think it’s funny as hell and want to criticize/mock you. Especially when we get lines like this:
“The Christian tradition of fasting can include anything from consuming only water from sunrise to sunset, to abstaining from a particular temptation — such as chocolate.”

So in order to combat an affront to the mighty creator of the universe little Timmy is going to have to lay off the cocoa bean for a month. Yeah that’ll send a ripple throughout society and the universe itself that your cause is just and you are totally committed. You know in the old days you guys used to whip yourselves to death or drive nails into your own hands to show your faith and devotion. That was back when Christians were hardcore. Now you guys are trying to convince yourselves and others to give up coffee for the cause (and by all appearances not doing a very good job of it). What does this really say about the state of your belief? If it really bothers you do what Buddhists did and immolate yourselves. That’s some hardcore religion.
On the more serious and less dickish aspect of this. My opposite and I are not saying that we actually wish for these people to kill themselves. The point is merely the ridiculousness of this whole idea. I am certain you have all heard the saying “it was the least I could do”? Well that rather fits this situation perfectly. This is, very nearly, the least they could be doing for a cause that they consistently claim to be of such earth shaking importance. Gay people getting married is of greater importance than gang violence, child soldiers in Africa, poverty (you know, family problems) yet this weak idea of a fast is the best they can manage?
On the same subject, I have to wonder why they think god hasn’t stepped in and done anything yet? After all these are people who thank god for helping them find their car keys from behind the couch cushions. Surely if gay people deciding they want to lose half their shit like everyone else was such a terrible thing he’d come down and start making with the wrath. It’s not like he hasn’t done it before according to them.
It seems like kind of a weak ass god, but hey, whatever puts a chubby in your chino kids.

Equality is Not Equal,Stop Acting Like It Is

You know, if I hear one more Social Justice Bozo talk about “equality” I think my opposite and I are going to descend into collective apoplexy.
They repeat it over and over like a mantra, as though it actually means something substantial. The same way the religious repeat things such as “god is love” to reaffirm to themselves that what they believe is actually true because they know deep down that if they ever stopped telling themselves these things for even a minute reason might actually creep into their minds and they just might come to understand how meaningless those terms really are. There’s never any deep thought or introspection behind their stated belief in those words, and truthfully when you ask them to elaborate on exactly what the buggerflump they actually mean by the things they talk about you can expect to get a lot of stammering, incoherent babbling and thousand yard stares. It’s simple-minded repetition, but then if there’s one thing ideologies specialize in, simplicity is it.
Social Justice Warriors are ultimately the liberal equivalent of the conservative sides right-wing fundamentalists. They’re self-righteous asses, bound by dogmatic thinking into assuming that they (and they alone) occupy the high moral ground. Which gives them license to stoop to whatever low becomes necessary in furtherance of their moral cause. And if there’s one thing that groups like feminists have shown us is that there is really no low that is too low to go. They’ve lied to entire generations of children about the state of the world and human history. Filling the heads of the vulnerable with fake tales of oppression and bigotry in a desperate attempt to cover their own.
And the start of it all  is this bunny-brained idea of “equality”.
Perhaps I should take over for a moment and let my other half calm himself.
Allow me to explain the problem with “equality”.
There is a term sometimes used by writers, called a “cheap” concept. You see there are times when poor writers or those with poor arguments can’t muster up the ability to give their audience a legitimate reason to care about a character, story, or idea they rely on attempting to tie their ideas to a vague concept that possesses an emotional quality but has no well-defined meaning. For instance the phrase “War on Terror”, does not actually mean anything substantive. It is simply a rallying cry to scare people into going along with you by implying that you’re off to fight and make them safe. As one can see from recent American history, it was a rather effective rallying cry as well. Had George Jr. and his republicans packaged their ideas honestly it’s highly unlikely they would have gotten the support for them. However by using cheap concepts such as “War on Terror”, “They hate us for our freedom”, etc. they got enough people to consent to a crazy war in a country that most of them could not even point out on a map.
In literary works it is used to gain sympathy or support for a character that is otherwise flat or badly written, but for whom the author needs the audience to rally behind.  Heroes in stories are often associated with fighting for “freedom” or “justice” or “love” or any other number of concepts that make the reader feel good about the story. It is why people cheer on characters like Superman. Not because Superman is a well-rounded, interesting character. He certainly isn’t. But because he has become over time a sort of composite of various heroic concepts that when one thinks of a superhero and a heroic adjective in the same thought, it is usually Superman that pops up. Ironically this is, in itself, likely the reason why Superman is such a poorly written character, but that’s a discussion to have for another time.
A hundred and one powers. Over forty-four character iterations and over six decades. Yet still hasn't figured out that the shorts go on the inside.

A hundred and one powers. Over forty-four character iterations spanning more than six decades. Yet still hasn’t figured out that the shorts go on the inside.


While equality might have some valuable meaning in mathematics and some theoretical models of science, it becomes much more ephemeral once you bring the concept into the real world.

In order to have equality, apply it to people and society while having it be meaningful in anyway there are several things that one would first need. Most importantly among them one needs an objective set of measurements and criteria that one could use to recognize and quantify equality. Because if you can’t measure or define what you mean by equality then you have no way of knowing whether or not you have it in the first place. Or how you can possibly achieve equality. Or when you’ve managed to achieve it. Essentially ensuring that you’ll never have it.

Upon leaving the realm of the theoretical it becomes increasingly more difficult in compelling the universe to be equal, simply due to the large number of variables that effect any phenomenon that exists outside of a closed system. Even assuming that there is equal probability it is very much improbable that there will ever be equal outcome. If one rolls a ten-sided die a hundred times there are slim odds of rolling each number ten times. Random chance will ensure that some numbers will almost certainly end up appearing more often than others. Hence the “random” part.

The issue becomes even further exacerbated  when you start factoring in living organisms, who will actually take actions. As opposed to passively allowing the laws of physics and the universe to act upon them and determine their destiny. The more complex the organism, the more effect they will have.

In other words; humans make choices.

Humans make choices based on their life experiences and goals. Based on their parental influence and their peer-groups. On their society and associations, needs and wants, likes and dislikes etc. Yes, even their gender as well. All of which are entirely different and, unsurprisingly, will lead to different outcomes. The simple fact is that there is no aspect of real life that breaks down into neat little delineations of “equal” and “unequal”. It simply does not occur. It is all merely a matter of the perspective of the person doing the evaluation.

Which perfectly describes why these people spectacularly fuck it up as they do. “Equality” is only really possible if you view the world and the groups in it through a very narrow lens. As you take more factors into account any sort of equality becomes progressively more impossible, so they must stick to equality in only the most simplistic of terms. Namely the ones that help them fulfill their inner-narrative of being the great warriors who stand up for the rights of the oppressed and the disadvantaged. Even when the oppressed and disadvantaged haven’t asked them to.Even when the oppressed and disadvantaged really wish they wouldn’t. Because they always know better.

The great majority of women refuse to identify themselves as feminists, despite the fact that feminists claim to be the one true force fighting for womens right. They, of course, are simply misguided.

More white people complain about Islamophobia than the nation of Islam itself. Because anyone who says something unflattering about Muslims is a racist. Even though they aren’t a race.

It’s the great paradox of Social Justice that those people who are so against sexism and racism are probably among the most sexist and racist of people in our society. Appointing themselves the one true protectors of the non-white races who for some reason can’t protect themselves. Standing up and speaking for all genders, in denial of the fact they have no wish you do so. Fighting for your rights because naturally you can’t fight for them yourself. You can’t even be trusted to know what they are. But don’t worry, they’ll tell you just exactly how you’re being oppressed so that you’ll be sure to understand how much you need them. Amd always with the arrogant assurance that they know better than the people themselves about what is good for them and what they need. If they disagree well, they’ve just been internalizing their oppression, that’s all.

Fuck these people.