This post is just a side-thought of a bigger issue that I'll try to address later.
The basic idea behind cultural appropriation is that another culture, mainly whites, are misusing X culture to their own amusement, whether intentionally or not. By doing this it mocks X culture and therefore it is innately racist. What if we extend this misuse to the social institution of marriage?
In the earliest days, the concept of marriage was between a man and a woman, whether for procreative and/or real estate purposes. This distinct characteristic, a man and a woman, that forms what is widely known as marriage has been slowly changed to mean "between X party and X party" in order to make room for same-sex pairings. Would this count as a form of cultural appropriation? Defenders of real marriage argue that same-sex "marriage" mocks the original constitutes of marriage that has been upheld for hundreds of years. But here's the catch. Arguments for supporting same-sex "marriage" say that marriage that does not allow two people of the same sex to get hitched to one another is not inclusive, while, say, the banning of a collegiate mascot or symbol that is deemed offensive is the "right thing to do." Statements by school representatives say that they want to be "inclusive", hence the banning of a school symbol or the taking down of a statue.
It can get confusing but that's the hilly reasoning. I'm still figuring out the definition of "inclusive" in both cases. One case is using to allow a certain form to exist; the other is generating feelings of non-offensiveness. The first case seems to be using the word correctly while the second shows up no where in the dictionaries I've referenced.
Saturday, August 26, 2017
Friday, August 18, 2017
An atheist admits: unburdened by charity.
Over at neoneocon, poster Les says the following:
Initially, I thought I could never vote for Trump and I didn’t, but that was because due to a death in the family, I didn’t get a chance to vote. I’m still not sure whom I would have voted for, but I was overjoyed on election night to see the shock going through the mainstream media and, yes, the shock on faces of all those Hillary supporters (being an atheist, I don’t worry too much about showing Christian charity).I'll admit, being a Catholic I was smiling at the shocked faces of Hillary supporters. But I think at that time there was no need for "Christian charity", after all, it's an political election and I only tend to be charitable during debate or if someone has done me wrong, perceived or real.
Saturday, August 12, 2017
It's 9/11 to CNN and the MSM
There was a protest agains taking down of the Robert E. Lee statue in the state of Virginia. Supposedly the man who organized the protest was a white nationalist. Anti-protestors, mostly black, showed up and tensions rose. Violence broke out but no news source is sure who threw the first punch. A car backed up into a crowd of anti-protestors where one was fatally injured.
For the past, I don't know, five hours it's been the main story on CNN. The commentary was the usual - take some moderate and/or sympathetic Republicans, grill them with ridiculous questions, while having self-indignant leftists, usually black, act as if their safe space was violated. The "moderate" Republicans also threw the right under the bus: an ex-CIA who grew up in a household of Republicans said that there is indeed a racist segment inside the GOP. He didn't names of course.
Another tactic was expressing the disappointment on how Trump reacted, where one commentator said he was diminishing the reality of the situation, saying that Trump's "we must condemn hate" was not enough. And the kicker? Before CNN took a commercial break the host quickly confirmed that she received news that the person who was driving the car that backed up into the crowd of anti-protesters was white. "And I received confirmation that the driver was white." MSM is rather determined to stamp this as a "white on black" crime. Too bad they wouldn't eager to know the San Bernardino terrorist's ethnicity. Alongside this was, again the host, doing something that was seen a mile away. Remember how the right criticized Obama and Hilary for not saying the word Islamic extremists after numerous domestic attacks, and even international attacks? Well the host asked a moderate Republican why Trump couldn't say (read: admit that the even was due to) white supremacy. When I heard this I had to chuckle and shake my head. Really? After one violent gathering where there are no official recordings of who started the fight CNN thinks they have a "gotcha" card on this. You got to be kidding me. Then she, the host, tries to idiotically tie in the KKK's backing of Reagan - "Your idol Reagan was supported by racists! What do you have to say to that!" Haven't they learned a lesson? They pulled this same nonsense when Piers Morgan tried to put Ben Shapiro in a corner asking him about Reagan's stance on gun control to which Shapiro said so what.
It's "breaking news" on youtube and it's going to receive front page news for Sunday's paper. It will most likely be the talk of the town for the entire week, focusing on how racist America is and how Trump's presidency is responsible for this. There will be "highlighted" youtube vids on this event by angry blacks saying "I told ya so!" You told nothin', brother. Same old same old.
And the MSM still hasn't a clue about what is the alt-right. Their idea of it is so shallow that it's almost embarrassing. To them alt-right mainly equals white supremacy. Because Richard Spencer and Bannon and Breitbart. That's basically it.
For the past, I don't know, five hours it's been the main story on CNN. The commentary was the usual - take some moderate and/or sympathetic Republicans, grill them with ridiculous questions, while having self-indignant leftists, usually black, act as if their safe space was violated. The "moderate" Republicans also threw the right under the bus: an ex-CIA who grew up in a household of Republicans said that there is indeed a racist segment inside the GOP. He didn't names of course.
Another tactic was expressing the disappointment on how Trump reacted, where one commentator said he was diminishing the reality of the situation, saying that Trump's "we must condemn hate" was not enough. And the kicker? Before CNN took a commercial break the host quickly confirmed that she received news that the person who was driving the car that backed up into the crowd of anti-protesters was white. "And I received confirmation that the driver was white." MSM is rather determined to stamp this as a "white on black" crime. Too bad they wouldn't eager to know the San Bernardino terrorist's ethnicity. Alongside this was, again the host, doing something that was seen a mile away. Remember how the right criticized Obama and Hilary for not saying the word Islamic extremists after numerous domestic attacks, and even international attacks? Well the host asked a moderate Republican why Trump couldn't say (read: admit that the even was due to) white supremacy. When I heard this I had to chuckle and shake my head. Really? After one violent gathering where there are no official recordings of who started the fight CNN thinks they have a "gotcha" card on this. You got to be kidding me. Then she, the host, tries to idiotically tie in the KKK's backing of Reagan - "Your idol Reagan was supported by racists! What do you have to say to that!" Haven't they learned a lesson? They pulled this same nonsense when Piers Morgan tried to put Ben Shapiro in a corner asking him about Reagan's stance on gun control to which Shapiro said so what.
It's "breaking news" on youtube and it's going to receive front page news for Sunday's paper. It will most likely be the talk of the town for the entire week, focusing on how racist America is and how Trump's presidency is responsible for this. There will be "highlighted" youtube vids on this event by angry blacks saying "I told ya so!" You told nothin', brother. Same old same old.
And the MSM still hasn't a clue about what is the alt-right. Their idea of it is so shallow that it's almost embarrassing. To them alt-right mainly equals white supremacy. Because Richard Spencer and Bannon and Breitbart. That's basically it.
Tuesday, August 8, 2017
Quarrels over fish.
Over at fisheaters, the traditional Catholic forum when compared to the VII friendly CatholicAnswers, I've discovered all is not well, at least when it comes to those who are converting - to Orthodoxy. I've noticed more than few a posters express that if they had an Orthodox church near them it be very tempting to convert while a couple went through the conversion.
On a thread where the original poster said that she was thinking of leaving Catholicism due to her addiction to masturbation, one poster actually said to look into Orthodoxy. What's more disturbing is that no one actually really said to this poster that he was leading her astray from God, since it is the belief of the Catholic that Catholicism is the true church of God. Any other sect or denomination is a pale imitation if not an outright lie. So even in the trad community there is a little VII spirit, just in a different light. I suppose it's because Orthodoxy is seen as the closest thing to Catholicism in the eyes of the well-read trad Catholic. Still, I was expecting these types of Catholics to interject and say the famous belief that gets Protestants all in the piss: Catholicism is the one true church of God. Salvation outside of the Church is not possible.
Protestants take this as arrogant and their reading of "outside the Church" means those who do not believe in a God and/or live a very secular, sinful life.
What I gather from those on fisheaters, from those who converted to Orthodoxy, is that the Catholicism is riddled with convoluted apologetics, the issue with infallibility, the Church's dealings with sin (e.g. masturbation - in the Orthodox mind it's still a sin but it's much less serious when compared to a Catholic lens), and historical grievances. I'll confess I'm not familiar with Orthodoxy, but just on face value those who converted tend to act very Protestant when expressing their disagreement. I find this rather ironic.
Pacman, a poster at the site, posted a thread stating he was leaving Catholicism for Orthodoxy. The byproduct was 29 pages of debate on whether Orthodoxy is more "true" than Catholicism. I tend to read the entire thread to learn about his reasons for leaving and, ultimately, to learn a little more about his new denomination.
So instead of debating whether there is a God, at fisheaters the fight is over Orthodoxy vs Catholicism. If there's one thing both sides over at the forum agree upon is this: VII effects suck and modernism can go to hell.
In the end it's still sad. Not even the beloved Latin Mass, so revered in the trad community, was enough for these Catholics to Orthodox converts to stay.
On a thread where the original poster said that she was thinking of leaving Catholicism due to her addiction to masturbation, one poster actually said to look into Orthodoxy. What's more disturbing is that no one actually really said to this poster that he was leading her astray from God, since it is the belief of the Catholic that Catholicism is the true church of God. Any other sect or denomination is a pale imitation if not an outright lie. So even in the trad community there is a little VII spirit, just in a different light. I suppose it's because Orthodoxy is seen as the closest thing to Catholicism in the eyes of the well-read trad Catholic. Still, I was expecting these types of Catholics to interject and say the famous belief that gets Protestants all in the piss: Catholicism is the one true church of God. Salvation outside of the Church is not possible.
Protestants take this as arrogant and their reading of "outside the Church" means those who do not believe in a God and/or live a very secular, sinful life.
What I gather from those on fisheaters, from those who converted to Orthodoxy, is that the Catholicism is riddled with convoluted apologetics, the issue with infallibility, the Church's dealings with sin (e.g. masturbation - in the Orthodox mind it's still a sin but it's much less serious when compared to a Catholic lens), and historical grievances. I'll confess I'm not familiar with Orthodoxy, but just on face value those who converted tend to act very Protestant when expressing their disagreement. I find this rather ironic.
Pacman, a poster at the site, posted a thread stating he was leaving Catholicism for Orthodoxy. The byproduct was 29 pages of debate on whether Orthodoxy is more "true" than Catholicism. I tend to read the entire thread to learn about his reasons for leaving and, ultimately, to learn a little more about his new denomination.
So instead of debating whether there is a God, at fisheaters the fight is over Orthodoxy vs Catholicism. If there's one thing both sides over at the forum agree upon is this: VII effects suck and modernism can go to hell.
In the end it's still sad. Not even the beloved Latin Mass, so revered in the trad community, was enough for these Catholics to Orthodox converts to stay.
Saturday, August 5, 2017
The English like to use "shit" a lot.
I'm a supporter of Aston Villa FC and today was their opener against Hull City, a club that was recently relegated to the second tier of the English professional pyramid, the Championship (not to be confused with the Champions League). The match started off with AV attacking and moving the ball through the midfield, bottling a few good changes but also scoring one goal. The second half was night and day. There was a lack of attacking and AV allowed Hull to have their way in the first 15 minutes of the second half. Eventually the opposition scored. It was tied 1-1.
Only in the last 15 or 20 minutes of the match did AV resembled their first half self. A few point blank chances bottled. At least they were getting chances now. Too late. The ref blows his whistle and both clubs have to settle for a point each in the table.
The disappointment on the reddit forum was understandable, but I can't help but bring up one word that kept coming up. Shit.
I've noticed the same thing on youtube's comment section when I'm watching vids about English clubs.
"Newcastle is shit."
"Birmingham City is shit."
"X manager is shit."
Etc. etc.
I just find it amusing. In the States there tends to be a plethora of words to express extreme disappointment. I'll even say it can be quite tame but the amount of words used is greater.
"X baseball manager is horrible at his job. He should be fired."
"X professional player is just not talented enough to play at X position as a starter."
Or it can be less gentlemanly.
"That fucking dumbass. He can kiss my sour ass for all I care."
There's also much more optimism when it comes to Americans and a disappointing opener. Take for instance the Chicago Cubs. The darn club just recently won their first World Series after 108 years. The saying "There's always next year" became a Chicago Cubs thing that would define the optimism of the fans despite no real evidence of things getting better. Then again the culture is different in American sports - there is no relegation/promotion battle found in the MLB or any in major league. In the case of AV the mentality is, given the squad and the time the manager had to settle in, a win today against a not so great Hull City squad would've been the start the club wanted to build of off for push towards the top of the division for an automatic promotion. Ever since the birth of the Premier League (1992), AV has been a staple until a year ago where the club made a record, a horrible once, for the least points scored in the history of the top flight: 13. Pride is at stake as well as the manager's job. (In the world of Western soccer/football, managers are fired as frequently as teenagers go through girl/boyfriends -- basically every three to six months. If you last a year consider yourself a rare gem.) Fans want the club out of the second tier and back into the top flight were they think it belongs. They just want to get back "home." I do too. I want AV to be promoted.
Next up is Cardiff the upcoming Saturday. Three points would be great. At least I'm hoping that's the case.
But as a Chicago Cubs fan, I'll say this - "There's always next match."
Only in the last 15 or 20 minutes of the match did AV resembled their first half self. A few point blank chances bottled. At least they were getting chances now. Too late. The ref blows his whistle and both clubs have to settle for a point each in the table.
The disappointment on the reddit forum was understandable, but I can't help but bring up one word that kept coming up. Shit.
I've noticed the same thing on youtube's comment section when I'm watching vids about English clubs.
"Newcastle is shit."
"Birmingham City is shit."
"X manager is shit."
Etc. etc.
I just find it amusing. In the States there tends to be a plethora of words to express extreme disappointment. I'll even say it can be quite tame but the amount of words used is greater.
"X baseball manager is horrible at his job. He should be fired."
"X professional player is just not talented enough to play at X position as a starter."
Or it can be less gentlemanly.
"That fucking dumbass. He can kiss my sour ass for all I care."
There's also much more optimism when it comes to Americans and a disappointing opener. Take for instance the Chicago Cubs. The darn club just recently won their first World Series after 108 years. The saying "There's always next year" became a Chicago Cubs thing that would define the optimism of the fans despite no real evidence of things getting better. Then again the culture is different in American sports - there is no relegation/promotion battle found in the MLB or any in major league. In the case of AV the mentality is, given the squad and the time the manager had to settle in, a win today against a not so great Hull City squad would've been the start the club wanted to build of off for push towards the top of the division for an automatic promotion. Ever since the birth of the Premier League (1992), AV has been a staple until a year ago where the club made a record, a horrible once, for the least points scored in the history of the top flight: 13. Pride is at stake as well as the manager's job. (In the world of Western soccer/football, managers are fired as frequently as teenagers go through girl/boyfriends -- basically every three to six months. If you last a year consider yourself a rare gem.) Fans want the club out of the second tier and back into the top flight were they think it belongs. They just want to get back "home." I do too. I want AV to be promoted.
Next up is Cardiff the upcoming Saturday. Three points would be great. At least I'm hoping that's the case.
But as a Chicago Cubs fan, I'll say this - "There's always next match."
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)