A Disgusting Parody Of "Tolerance," Multi-Cultural Races vs. Disgusting Freaks

Here is a disgusting parallel that unfortunately some open-minded multi-cultural types draw.  It is supremely insulting that these liberals think they are being sooooo open-minded for accepting and tolerating other cultures.

In their minds, there is not much discernible difference between the dregs of society, and simply being part of a non-white ethnicity group.  They equate other cultures as being equivalent with ___

In response to how liberals think that because they are so damn tolerant and accepting of diversity.

This does nothing but open up cans and cans of worms.  Whole vats, cargo of worms.  Or also the fact that now these weird lunatic, outer-limit, freak types think that they can worm their way into mainstream society just because non-white races and ethnicities are now being more widely accepted as normal.  (I'm using a lot of nematode references, aren’t I?  No offense meant to the nematodes of the world.)

They are forgetting one very important thing.  Many of these minority communities still hold the nuclear two-parent family structure in very high regard.  They still maintain morals, consciences, and good judgment.  They might be from different ethnicities, but this does not mean they are stupid irresponsible freaks.  They don't go and get knocked up out of wedlock, or knock somebody up out of wedlock (depending on the gender), and/or then sit there and expect to be regarded with the same respect society has for someone who did good things with their life.

It is supremely insulting that so many people think that a different culture and ethnicity and nationality, is somehow on the same plane of existence as an incestuous dangling-by-a-hinge family.  ""alternative lifestyle""

So you honestly think that an entire identity and culture, with its vivid music, festivals, dance, lively arts, visual and performing arts, foods, rituals, customs, dress -- are somehow the same as a person with horrible judgment that self-destructs?

This is insulting.  It is insulting that you think drug addicts and freaks and bisexuals and sex change operation people are somehow on the same level of dignity as foreign people who are proud of their heritage. _________want to stay true to their roots____
It is disgusting that anyone thinks it requires as much effort to be "tolerant" of other cultures as the effort to be "tolerant" of pseudo-consensual crimes against nature.

Revelation: Apples

Science At Odds With Religion

I just thought of something really weird.  Why do so many religious types, mostly Christians, consider science to be at odds with religion?

An apple represents so-called "original sin."  That of wanting to explore and discover and learn about the world in which we live.

White people forever associate knowledge with original sin.  Their faith systems demand it.  In the olden legends, Adam and Eve ate a healthy nutritious fruit.  This luscious fruit subsequently got them kicked out of heaven.  And then a couple millennia later, Sir Isaac Newton had to go and have an apple fall on top of his head and let it inspire concepts such as gravitational force, the earth's magnetic pull, etc.

I wonder if this is why so many Christians are staunchly anti-science and anti-evolution.  In their minds, these two unrelated topics are inextricably linked because of that -- that one little piece of fruit.  It is a focal point on which the world revolves.

This had led to two odd halves of the same yin yang.  An apple brought the downfall of humankind according to this archaic gossip.  This apple was purportedly [to be] fruit from the tree of knowledge.  And furthermore another apple led to leaps and bounds in scientific discovery.  Therefore all science, and the very concept of academia, is bad.

So these two precepts of sin and science are inextricably linked in their minds.  leading to a mass population that harbors this neurosis from a slightly different angle.  So-called atheists -- just because they like science, learning, discovering (even if they are not very good at it) they think themselves rebellious, renegade, trailblazing freethinkers indeed.

Not A Renegade Trailblazer At All...

A continuation of my previous article.  These fantasy fiction or otherwise entertainment offerings have certain hackneyed tired old female characterizations.  They are not actually renegade trailblazers.  They are just sl-ts.

It is always, but always, some general useless disgusting social rebellion.  When I say "social rebellion," I don't even mean rebellion against the looming, foreboding "society."  I mean that they are simply going against their family who only loves them and wants what's best for them.  They are doing nothing more than engaging in useless trash.  Drinking, partying, screwing around.

Guess what.  That's not rebellion.  That's just self-destruction.  That is it.  That is destroying your liver, your kidneys, destroying your delicate endothelial linings of your uterine system.  You are not helping yourself in any sense of the world.  You are in fact harming yourself.

I've seen some dumbazzes on the internet say stuff like, ""ohhh they are challenging women's stereotypes of being stay-at-home-moms," or some sh-t like that.
Uh, no, they are not.  Again, let me refer you to diagram B.  They are doing self-destructive crap.  There is no benefit to what they are doing to themselves.  There is no benefit gained for themselves, and there is no benefit gained for the greater "society."

A recent pop culture example is that "brotherhood of the wolf" movie," which featured a requisite wh-re character.  She was the only significant female character in the movie.  If they had just left it at being a fortune teller, that would have been at least interesting.  But nope, they had to go and add the h--ker part.  Pink and lil kim and the other females portraying prostities Moulin rouge.  Dido and that trash filth morbid-joke inferior-replacement-of-a-human-being apparently celebrating violence against women.  And these types always try to defend it with some crap-azzed reason of why this is somehow better than actual renegade out-of-the-box strategies.

Even on the rare occasion in which the author serves up a female character that does hail from another ethnic culture, all she does is have sexx with some dude from the mainstream culture.  That is pretty much all that the fictions offer.  That is the extent of the female's contribution to positive social change.
These female characters are never written to effect any actual useful social change.  They are not renegades, trailblazers.

The anemically few times we see alien females, they are portrayed as sez objects and nothing else.  They are not written with any personalities to speak of, they have no goals, no hopes and dreams, no ambitions.  They have no careers, no education, no hobbies.  They are nothing more than their body parts.  They are simply pieces of meat.  On one of the newer Star Treks there is this really pretty blonde lady that is an alien or robot or something called "Seven of Nine."  Guffaw.  Give me a break.  Other than a small piece of metal on the upper part of her face, there is absolutely no other indicator of her extra-human super-human status.  She looks like a typical "hot," sexy, boring, personality-free sex object wearing a skin-tight formfitting body stocking, with no personality nor IQ that reaches triple digits. 

In a disturbingly large number of books, this is the norm.  The weak, simpering, excuse-for-strong female is never written as doing anything genuinely revolutionary.  She is never written as overthrowing an oppressive religious regime.  She is never written as truly honestly challenging a family or societal structure that is abusive, domineering, criminal especially to women.  Newsflash -- being a stripper/whore/etc. is not overthrowing religious fundamentalists or abusive families.  All that is, is destroying one's own medical and emotional health.

If there is an abusive political regime from a nearby civilization (har har) that has beaten down and enslaved the people of her own culture, she is never a badass commanding a renegade military group to overthrow those slave-mongers.

The females are not effecting any genuine good political improvement.  Not rousing the people up into a sociopolitical movement that could lead to greater sense of community and better interaction.  Not organizing the community into better cooperation, or working together towards a common goal.  They almost never usher in positive social change.

The Hackneying In Fiction

Tons of fantasy fiction has the same recurring themes rehashed over and over.

I know witches and vampires are the biggest craze in pop culture now.  (L J Smith, of whom I'll admit I am a huge fan, yet still is also guilty.)

But let us examine this entertainment trend a bit more closely.  I notice that all the girl characters are vampire slayers.  Or witches.  (Crickets chirping.)  Witches-- that means they are little middle-class white girls that complain there aren’t enough vegetarian foods in the cafeteria (Ten Things) and have onscreen lesbian kisses (Buffy).  That is the extent to which pop culture defines girls in fantasy fiction.

Vampires in general are always depicted as being more powerful than their human victims.  This is pretty much a consensus not just in recent pop culture, but also with Bram Stoker, Anne Rice, etc.  And they are almost always male.  Sexy, seductive, powerful.  There are hardly any female vampires.  (Don’t bother piping up with Lestat’s mother-- that was an insult to hypothetical female vampires.)

I'm getting the impression that authors are worried vampires are not feminine enough.  The authors seem to be completely unaware that it is not necessary to give female vampires "male" characteristics.  Female vampires could be beautiful and ruthless and poised and cultured.  The characters could be every bit as powerful as male vampires without resorting to masculine-woman characterizations.

They never ever, and I mean never ever, portray, say, a female werewolf.  Werewolves are actually powerful and wild, untamed.   That is the popular culture portrayal.  Yet you never see a female werewolf character in pop culture.  This is definitely one that they obviously think is too masculine to be female.

What utter hogwash.  I feel that this reveals the depths to which authors truly lack creativity.  If such an astounding number of fantasy fiction authors are unable to cultivate a believable female werewolf character, then perhaps they need to go back to their creative writing programs and pick up a few more skills.

They could portray a werewolf who is warm and strong.  Have these authors really never been acquainted with a woman in real life who is warm and strong, protective and nurturing?  I.e., an ideal springboard from which to design a believable female werewolf?

Just because they are good does not mean they have to be pristine lily white angel goody-two-shoes, who don't even want any harm to come to their enemies.  Yeah right.  They can have just due to befall their enemies.  That philosophy is called justice.

They can still be kickass and ferocious and fierce.  A force to be reckoned with.  Like Mulan.  Mulan was awesome.  She was brave, courageous, legendary, intense and dynamic.  She also was from a single, solitary movie from three years ago.  Nothing in recent memory even comes close to be level of heroicism.

In a fantasy fiction book once, there was a young guy character who was a widower.  As if that weren't traumatic enough, he had also lost his two young children.  Now I genuinely, truly do not mean to be insensitive to widowers (or widows) in real life, or to anyone who has lost a loved one.  You have to believe me on that.

But we are talking about book characterizations and whether or not this is quality writing.  And the fact is, the guy's experiences in life have given him strength.  He has seen pain, he has experienced extreme heartache.  He had made that emotional commitment to a wife at a point in his lifetime.  Only to have it cruelly wrenched away from him.  Because of his heartbreaks, he has grown as a human being; he is a stronger and better person for it.

Whereas the chick he's having sezz with is a silly, simpering, sheltered female who has never had to grow up or do a damn day's worth of work in her entire life.  She still needs her mother to cook for her and take care of her.  She has never been close to any searing, heartrending trauma such as watching your spouse or your own blood kin die right in front of your eyes.  Ha!  Yeah, right, are you kidding me?  Not even.

Well, to reveal the whole story, her father left when she was slightly younger but first he made sure her mother had the house and the pension.  (Eyes blinking boredly.  Crickets chirping.)  That is the extent of the merciless trauma she has endured.  Yep, that's all folks.

The Bridget jones and Ally mcbeal.  These are horrible excuses for your "modern woman." This is a sad sorry effigy parody of a "strong capable educated worldly sophisticated woman in charge if her own life." What the hell is feminism even there for if the intended audience is just squandering away all of the opportunities that this social movement has bestowed us?  Feminism is there to broaden your horizons, yet all they do is choose to stick with tired old crap.

Anyways.

Athletes and Performance-Enhancing Drugs

I wanted to write this because I really don't see what the big deal is about athletes taking performance-enhancing drugs in general.  If I have to be completely honest, I do not understand what all the controversy and hoopla is about.  It’s just much ado about nothing.

"But b-b but but performance-enhancing drugs enhances their performance unfairly..."

Wait a minute.  ANY training of any sort is extracurricular and counter-complementary to any human being's natural athletic ability.  People that train for the Olympics, or indeed, people that train for any major sporting event, by necessity are going to go far outside the bell curve of exercising requirement.  In fact, they would HAVE to train far more extensively than a person that merely dabbles in jai alai on weekends for fun.  That is a requirement!

Recently I read a book that delved into the history of the Olympics events, including rules and regulations.  There were strict rules for qualifications, outlining exactly who was allowed to compete.  There was detailed explanation of the protocol surrounding prospective competitors.  It talked about the indignity in which-- if a person had received some sort of un-allowed formal training, this was automatically grounds for disqualification.  For example if a person was briefly employed in a job that had one of its job duties as swimming, then they were disqualified from Olympics- Swimming.
   
But what designated a training regimen as being “un-allowable” vs. one that was “allowed?”  Did the formal training prepare them too well?  Was it overly intense or something?  Basically they were saying that someone that has had professional training was “overqualified.”

This was silly.  If it is competition we are talking about -- and it is -- then there is no such thing as over-qualification.  And look, it’s not like they were talking about professional football players joining a peewee football game.  They were talking about a person that was maybe employed as a delivery person in town for six weeks and being denied the chance to be in Olympics- Track and Field.

"Oh but some athletes would have an unfair advantage..." they start to say.

Laos vs. United States spending-- Laos on developing its national athletic program for potential Olympic contenders.

There was an article in Newsweek magazine about Laos vs. United States advertising of the Olympics events.  The country of Laos has for every dollar spent on just its athletic program, the US spent five dollars on mere advertising.  On advertising.  They spent that much money just to get people to watch the damn thing.

I am assuming that means the US apparently has unlimited resources for developing optimal guidelines for creating training programs for the athletes.  Training, weightlifting, running... okay, I’m not sure exactly what else they do.  But I bet it’s punishing.

That is an unfair advantage, is it not?  How exactly is that any more fair than the notorious performance-enhancing drugs?

Come on, people.  We all have at least a vague idea of the merciless training routines to which Olympic athletes have to subject themselves.  Time and Newsweek and People magazines regale us with tales of the ruthless, grueling regimens and strict diets they have to follow.

I remember reading an article in People magazine back around the 1996 Olympics, I believe.  For some of them, the dietary regimens are an austere lower-than-low calorie sprock.  For others, their daily diets are actually much higher in calories than the average USDA food pyramid.  But those athletes do have to follow a very detailed, controlled diet.  They cannot waiver for a second, lest they gain a half-ounce that might negatively impact their aerodynamics.

They try to use the excuse that, "a performance-enhancing drug has nothing to do with the athlete's own ability."

Depressions in golf balls.  Golf balls have been altered so they fly farther.  Those little dips on the surface of a golf ball are not randomly placed.  Golf balls have had those little depressions carved into them in very meticulously calculated locations on the ball.

What I'm saying is, what the hell is the damn difference between improving equipment and utilities for the express purpose of acquiring better sports scores and runtimes -- and improving the human body for the express purpose of acquiring better sports scores and runtimes?  Really, can someone explain this to me?  I do not understand why the line is drawn at performance-enhancing drugs.

Some people might say, "oh well that's unfair because some athletes might have access to performance-enhancing drugs more easily and readily than other athletes."

Alright, fair enough.  So as a remedy to this quandary, why don't we just give ALL the athletes performance-enhancing drugs?  To hell with it.  Give drugs to everybody then.  Don’t we already give drugs to the military to make them more focused and alert?

I will reference Mark McGuire, the baseball player from back a few short years ago who was caught “doping.”  Even when Mark McGuire was caught taking steroids or something, I was probably the only person I know who was perfectly fine with it.

I will inform you that I have been taught debate team tactics and argumentative writing.  I’ve been trained to anticipate what the opposing side’s possible arguments might be.  Affirmative vs. Rebuttal, all that good stuff.  Let us cover some of them now.

A predictable response might follow thusly, "Well that is still unfair because some people might respond to performance-enhancing drugs better than other people."
Oh my, whatever do you mean?

"We mean some people might display more increased, better, faster, more efficient performance than other people even on the same drugs."

Some people might naturally respond more strongly and more positively to the drugs than other people.  As a biochemical, metabolic response, the drugs would give them an unfair advantage.  So even if Olympic tribunals and council distributed an even dosage of performance-enhancing drugs to all athletes.  Some people might naturally have a more increased performance directly as a result of the drugs, than other people."

Even if they controlled it for age, sex, height, weight category, temperament, same as is done for all medications.  You know how medical physicians must calculate dosage of anesthetic medicines, prescriptions, all pharmacology to give each individual patient, with the intention that the final outcome will be equivalent.  Similarly with Olympics and other athletics.  Even if they tried their best to control all possible factors in efforts to make it as fair as possible, it still would not be fair.  Some people might have an intrinsic trait in their anatomy and physiology by which they respond better to drugs than other people."

Oh, I see.  You mean, TALENT?

News fuh-lash, folks.  Talent is what the Olympics events are testing for.  It is what *ALL* athletic events are testing for.  Talent is what the participants are competing to find out about.  Talent is the number one, first and foremost, old school original "unfair advantage."  That is the theme and point of the whole thing.

On Magic Tricks and Science

In a weird way, magic tricks and science are related.  But they are not related in a bad way, certainly not for the purposes of my essay.

Why do people seem to think that knowing more about a subject reduces its complexity [[[attractiveness, wonder]]]] and [[[interest]]] ?
Gazing in wonder and curiosity...

I think that knowing more about a topic makes it increasingly more fascinating.  I *like* finding out how magic tricks work.  To me that makes watching a magic trick even more fun.

I think it's a matter of interpretation.  It's all about how you perceive the information that you take in.

For some reason, some people seem to think that learning about the world and about the universe somehow destroys the magic and the mystery.  For example, they think that learning about science/evolution/etc. means that they should stop believing in a deity.  To me, that sounds incredibly juvenile and simple-minded.  Do they really think that these two world views are so incredibly, insurmountably opposed to each other that they cannot exist in the same space?

To me, learning about science makes me *more* spiritual.  I remember being in high school AP biology class, and we were studying blastula formation.

Why do you think that that diminishes the excitement?
spellbound, spellbinding

Special effects in movies are also fun to learn about. ______]]]]]

Passion vs. Practicality

Let us talk about choosing a college major in terms of reason vs. emotions.

The general media seems to not quite have their priorities straight.  They keep caterwauling about studying something that one is very emotional about.

Ah, I would rather study something practical.
No no don't be practical!  Be passionate!!!!  Follow your heart only!!!  Do NOTT follow your brain!!!

I really prefer to study something that would actually get me a job after I graduate.
No no no!!!!!!  Don’t worry about money!!!!  Don't worry about bills!  Don’t worry about whether or not you would be able to support yourself with any earnings from a degree in literature!!!!  Do not think about logic!!!  The ONLY consideration you should make when studying something is, are you passionate!!!!

Sigh.  There is no use trying to reason with these people.  Here is the root-and-stem for my chosen college major.  If I am going to devote that much of my time, energy, and effort, then I must make sure it is all worthwhile.  That is a necessity.  I would much rather dedicate my energy and mental resources towards studying a college major that has a realistic outlook.  The prognosis of employment is far healthier for my chosen major -- it actually has jobs available out in the field.

Also, I excel in the mathematical and science subjects.  I am good at it.  I have a natural affinity for detailed, complex subject matter that is also logical and rational.  Those classes and course topics just make sense to me.  Why shouldn't I study one of the math or science concentrations if I have that option realistically available to me?

I would really like it if they would stop beating the dead horse of insisting that students pick careers based on "passion" rather than being intelligent and reasonable about it.
Do not worry about whether you would actually be good at your chosen profession!!  The only thing you should worry about is if you would have fun!  Only pursue something if it feeeeels fun and entertaining!!  Don’t worry about the fact that the particular field you feeeeel passionate about is something that you are not particularly talented at!!!  Only worry about whether or not you have fun!!!

Here is the way I see it.  Education is an investment.  I have to make sure that all that hard work will pay off for me in the end.  Ergo, that means that I must study one of the critical fields of math and science.  There is a plethora of majors from which I can choose.

Muse? No Thanks

Why do so many girls think it such an ego boost to be a muse for a separately-identified talented person?  Or to be a naked model for someone else’s sculpture project?  They think that if a guy asks them to pose for a naked painting, this validates their femininity or some crap.

These little girls think it is suuuuuuch a great compliment to be some pretty piece of still life, an inanimate object that serves as inspiration for the male artist.  They are incredibly flattered to be told to shut up and not do anything -- just sit there and look pretty.

They think it is a compliment to sit like a plastic statue to pose for someone else's sculpture or painting -- rather than being the person herself who does the work of creating something from scratch.

I hope they realize they're not really equivalent to the muses of the ancient Greek beliefs.  In that olden Greek tradition, it was believed that the muses actually breathed the force of creativity into bards and scribes and sculptors.  So it was truly the muses that held the creativity.  The mortal that expressed it was more of a medium, kind of like how a psychic medium channels a dead spirit.  It was believed that the mortal did not really possess the creative talent imbued.

That is not at all the same definition that these little girls are using nowadays.  In modern days, "muse" just means a vague, [[[borderline relevant]]]] mild inspiration.  Or as is more often the case, it is a way for a pervert to gawk and stare at a naked chick, while the naked chick is too dumb to realize that the pervert might not be a true art connoisseur.  Not really emulating the role of the ancient muses.

Me?  I chose to be the artist.  I chose to be the creator.  I found that there is great joy and tranquility in creating a masterpiece.  I would never dream of just posing for someone else to do the creating.

I prefer to be the person doing the work of planning, and outlining, and sketching.  I relish the painstakingly agonizing over every detail, making sure to get it just right.  I cherish the striving to perfection.  I savor expressing in exquisite detail out in the concrete world whatever whimsical fantasies swirl around in my head.

It is enormously satisfying.  It never occurred to me <not> to be the artist and daydreamer.  It never occurred to me to settle for merely being the pretty little window dressing while some guy did the building.  Why would that ever occur to me?

I prefer to think and dream and imagine.  That is a far more interesting life to lead.

In Real Life, Too

I’ve even seen this same curiosity//peculiarity ricocheted in real life.
If there is a girl in one of these alternative counterculture streams, she is never fascinating, fun, intriguing, complex like the exemplary guy is.
She never embodies the characteristics of the underground subculture the way the guys do.
If there ever IS a girl from one of these oblique cultures, she is almost always just a sl-t.  That's it.  That is the extent, and the scope, of her "renegade trailblazing from the mainstream into the [[[like plunge into the depths, no turning back now,__]]]

It is flabbergasting how little variation/ deviance from this weird [[[consistenc cliche hackney stereotype nononono]]]] there is.

I saw a guy that was crazy looking, all pierced and tattooed and head shaved with some sort of requisite music group tshirt; but admittedly the human specimen underneath all that was objectively quite hot.  Then I saw his girlfriend-- a pretty adorable little mainstream number that worked in one of the mall clothing boutiques, thin as per usual, silky paper-thin platinum blonde hair.  I almost had a stroke trying to keep my eyes from rolling.