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.

 

 

twittergoogle_plusyoutube

Schrodinger’s Rapist The Fourth Is Available

The fourth installment of our essay on Schordinger’s Rapist is now up and ready for viewing. Feel free to comment on the essay or anything else so far. There has been quite a great deal of head-banging, teeth-clenching, and attempts at self-lobotomies throughout this writing. However we have waded through it for you and now there is only one final part that remains.
What he’s trying to say is, you guys owe us for suffering through this, and I’m coming for your young.
twittergoogle_plusyoutube

The Pope’s Moral Fail

I know we just did one on the Pope but we were actually going to do these two things together, then later on decided to split them apart just before we actually started because while the two were connected we thought that they worked better separately. So bear with us please.
In the same day that we talked about in our previous post Pope Francy-Pants also went back to trying to cover up his ass in regards to the churches crimes of raping children.
Of course if he’d been doing his job and covering up the childrens…….well you see where I’m going with that.
Someone just became an altar boy.

Someone just became an altar boy.

Said the Pope:” “I feel compelled to personally take on all the evil which some priests, quite a few in number, obviously not compared to the number of all the priests, to personally ask for forgiveness for the damage they have done for having sexually abused children.”
…….I….I really tried, tried for a long time, in fact, to come up with a response that I thought was really fitting for this statement…..and I couldn’t really think of one that appropriately conveyed my response. So I asked my other half to help me prepare a suitable response. The best that we could devise was this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ez-U0FQxusk&feature=youtu.be

Ok, Pope-a-Dope. I’m going to try and explain to you some of the problems with just that one fucking sentence.
First, and this is the thing that really jumps out at me about this whole speech, if you’re going to ask for forgiveness AT LEAST FUCKING SAY YOU’RE SORRY!
He NEVER says it.How fucking arrogant is that? Asking for forgiveness without a single apology for the thing that you’re supposed to be forgiven for. It’s taking lack of accountability to a whole different level when you can look at an entire audience of people, speak to countless numbers of children who have been abused and raped by the people in your organization (people you are in charge of) and ask to be forgiven without even uttering a “my bad” for appearances sake.
Also, while we’re on this subject, if you’re going to ask for forgiveness, first stop doing the fucking thing we’re supposed to be forgiving you for.
First get the priests to stop raping children. Then stop protecting them from the law. THEN fully cooperate with the police who are investigating the crimes and the district attorneys who are trying to prosecute them. THEN provide FULL documentation of all of the cover-ups, including, names, places, and numbers to prosecutors so they can arrest the priests who covered up for the other priests.  THEN excommunicate every single one of those dress-wearing assclowns. THEN provide complete financial restituion to all of the victims that have been hurt. THEN, FUCKING SAY YOU’RE SORRY.
Only THEN, do you start asking for forgiveness, asshole.
The second thing is that asking for forgiveness on behalf of others is Darwin-damned pointless. He doesn’t ask to be forgiven himself because he did nothing to stop the abuses. He’s asking for the abusers to be forgiven. The same abusers that are hiding within the church and admit to no wrong doing. How is that even supposed to work? Why not drag the priests that raped children and the ones who covered it up before a group of the children and parents they hurt and have them ask for forgiveness in person?
When we were about five this one time we was playing with our cousin and we liked one of his toy cars. It wasn’t important or anything, just a tiny little piece of shit Mcdonalds toy. But we liked it so we pocketed it and took it home with us. When we got home we started playing with it and our father realized what we had done, so what do you think he did? Well I’ll first tell you what he didn’t do. He didn’t call my uncle up on the phone and ask my uncle to forgive him for the fact that we had stolen something from his son. My dad grabbed us then and there and hauled my little monkey-ass back over to my uncles place IMMEDIATELY. Then we had to stand there in front of my uncle and cousin and tell them both what we did. Then we apologized and asked for forgiveness, and incidentally we got it. But we had to take responsibility for what we did and own up to it.
Which brings me to the third problem.
You can’t “personally take on all the evil”. This vicarious redemption blame transfering bunny-brained bible bullshit doesn’t work in the real world. These are real people, who have done real crimes, and harmed real innocents……really. They also have real culpability and deserve real punishment, not your “sit in a room and pray the rapist away” theological mumbo-jumbo. This is not Star Wars, the darkside does not actually exist. There is no mystical evil force waiting to be purified by the power of your godrod. Stop acting as though there is, and for Newtons sake stop trying to blame your fuck-ups on it.
The thing that I think I most want you take away from these two posts is that Pope Francy Pants and those like him claim to be the moral leaders of humanity. They claim that they have a direct line to the great giver of morality without which no human could possibly know not to kill another human. Yet they fail to even demonstrate, not only that they’re more moral, but that they can even comprehend moral responsibility and culpability.
This is why it annoys me so greatly when people like the religious start to talk about morality in regards to things like homosexuality, or abortion, or anything else. To them morality and moral obligations are things that can be shifted away onto others, or are cackling little creatures trying to mess with you. Not things that you yourself are responsible for. Morals and values are not things you decide for yourself, they are immutable dictates handed down that you are forced to follow because you are commanded to. NO, that is not morality. It is dogma at best,psychosis at worst.
If you think that morality is given to us from on high by a magic man in the sky, or a jewish zombie, then you do not get to have a vote on society’s morals because morality does not concern you.

 

Ten "Hail Marys" and it's all good. Now gimme some sugar,"baby".

Ten “Hail Marys” and it’s all good. Now gimme some sugar,”baby”.

 

twittergoogle_plusyoutube