Of course, this is one of the profound ways in which oppression works—to mire us in body hatred. Homophobia is all about defining queer bodies as wrong, perverse, immoral. Transphobia, about defining trans bodies as unnatural, monstrous, or the product of delusion. Ableism, about defining disabled bodies as broken and tragic. Class warfare, about defining the bodies of workers as expendable. Racism, about defining the bodies of people of color as primitive, exotic, or worthless. Sexism, about defining female bodies as pliable objects. These messages sink beneath our skin.
If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also
This specifically refers to a hand striking the side of a person’s face, tells quite a different story when placed in it’s proper historical context. In Jesus’s time, striking someone of a lower class ( a servant) with the back of the hand was used to assert authority and dominance. If the persecuted person “turned the other cheek,” the discipliner was faced with a dilemma. The left hand was used for unclean purposes, so a back-hand strike on the opposite cheek would not be performed. Another alternative would be a slap with the open hand as a challenge or to punch the person, but this was seen as a statement of equality. Thus, by turning the other cheek the persecuted was in effect putting an end to the behavior or if the slapping continued the person would lawfully be deemed equal and have to be released as a servant/slave.
THAT makes a lot more sense, now, thank you.
we’re doing this rn in theology class but im gonna be That Person and ask for a source because this sounds legit but if im gonna talk about this im gonna need to cite something
ok found a few sources for this actually so Yes this seems like a solid reading of the quote
http://www.ualberta.ca/~cbidwell/DCAS/third.htm (about a third of the way down)
I need someone to preach this. I’ll have to use it in some spoken word at church.
Jesus said slap that hoe back.
Yay, sources! I heard this a while ago but didn’t have any evidence to go on. I’m so glad. That passage isn’t about being nice to your oppressors, turning the other cheek isn’t an act of passivity. It’s about turning the tables and taking back dignity. It’s about shaming those who would oppress. People don’t seem to get that Jesus wasn’t a ‘bear your yoke quietly’ kind of guy. He was an agitator and a radical, and these kind of readings inspire me so much to fight, not just people on the street but people in the church who would have us accept their toxic teachings and ask for more.
Yeah, shit like this? Just proves how much those in power deliberately warp shit to their benefit. They twist any sort of resistance to the status quo to be utterly useless and then sneak it into everything as subtle propaganda. Like how “violence is never the answer” and “an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind” are the twisted versions that deprive folks of justice. No revolution was truly 100% bloodless, tho history can be rewritten to erase that fact, or skew it to serve as fear-mongering bullshit.
There’s also Matthew 5:38-42 about walking the extra mile for others, which I enjoy immensely. People read this and interpret it as being generous and loving to everyone you meet, but really it boiled down to another Fuck You to the Roman empire. Roman soldier could force the conquered/non-citizens to carry their junk for a mile. From what I remember, the point of the law was to rub it in the face of non-citizens that they were a conquered nation? But by law, Roman soldiers were only allowed to force someone to carry their junk for one mile (the restriction existed bc they’d been abusing it and forcing people to carry their junk for a full day or something ridiculous) and to force someone to carry their junk further had stiff penalties.
Hence, Fuck You. It was a brazen display of nonviolent protest bc it basically said I’ll Follow Your Law, But You Don’t Own Me. Nonviolent protest by shaming the oppressor for their barbarity.
Like, Jesus was crucified, one of the most humiliating forms of public execution at the time, for a reason.
(as for sources, apparently Marc Borgus’s Jesus: Uncovering the Life, Teachings, and Relevance of a Religious Revolutionary is a good source??? I don’t know, man. I’m just remembering from the last time I went to church bc all the stuff popping up on google just ended up being the bland platitudes that “going the extra mile” and “turning the extra cheek” were turned into. Plus I no longer have access to JSTOR or all that junk )……:)
New Delhi: The Supreme Court today said gay sex between consenting adults remains a criminal offence, in a major setback for the largely closeted homosexual community in India.
The top court today said that the Delhi High court’s 2009 order decriminalising homosexuality is constitutionally unsustainable.
The Delhi High Court had decriminalised homosexuality while reading down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code and ruled that sex between two consenting adults in private would not be an offence.
The high court order had been challenged by anti-gay rights activists, social and religious organisations .
Senior BJP leader BP Singhal, who died last year, had challenged the verdict calling it illegal, immoral and against the ethos of Indian culture.
Religious organisations such as the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, Utkal Christian Council and Apostolic Churches Alliance also filed appeals against that verdict.
Look I’m gay and this hurts even in the diaspora, so I am praying for all of the LGBTQ+ people in India right now. May they stay safe and regain their protection soon. I will post more information as it comes.
My new doll, Nyx, made by me with a beautiful make-up of my friend Limë.
Nyx will be available for preorder in normal skin and white skin. To place an order, send me an e-mail to : firstname.lastname@example.org
wowwowWOW what a gorgeous doll!
real music isn’t on the radio. the radio broadcasts nothing but arbitrary sounds strung together in a false semblance of harmony. my personal favourite is malfunctioning wood chipper interspersed with the crunch of wet snow and barking slowed down 300%. it haunts my dreams nightly. turn off the radio and go listen to real music. please.
citing Leviticus to justify homophobia actually makes no sense within the context of Christianity
the whole point of the New Testament and Jesus’ death is that he tossed out the old rules, removing any need to follow the Old Testament when he saved humankind
if you believe in Jesus then you cannot read the Old Testament literally. to do so is antithetical to Christianity as a whole
On abuse and anonymity- a better ‘fuckwad theory’
Most people have heard the ‘internet fuckwad theory’:
There is a logic to the idea that it’s anonymity and the audience that produces the bad behaviour, but this is not all of it, and my own sociological research has re-inforced that.
Certain aspects of the situations presented on the internet do encourage bad behaviour, and anonymity is part of what enables it, but it’s not everything. I would like to propose a more nuanced Fuckwad theory, that not only explains internet abuse but also common forms of offline abuse.
It’s a combination of:
1) A lack of consequences to transgression.
2) A lack of investment in how you appear to the people you’re commenting amongst, or at least in how you appear to those you’re giving abuse to.
3) Relatedly, a ’drive by’ aspect to interaction- you comment and you move on to the next thing, without much likelihood of returning to the same place and meeting the same people twice.
4) The ability to seek out and comment on stuff you hate- for people who hate stuff this is obviously a strong draw. A lot of people are filled with vitriol for various things, views and people yet the opportunity to actually vent this at said thing/view/person is actually not always present face to face as often, or not safe enough, which links to point 1) about consequences.
5) The audience factor. This has two aspects (possibly more). A) a person insults others because they enjoy offending/insulting someone and getting a reaction, linking it to aspect 4) but also with added general sadism and attention getting.And/or B) they do so because it will get them kudos with their peers. Both at once may apply.
In some contexts online, such as youtube, there is little scope for B) because there is hardly any community and few will be impressed. But in other contexts, such as tumblr, B) may be a pretty strong motivation.
Presence of these factors will increase tendencies for abusive interaction, online or offline. Particular contexts can mitigate these tendencies where they attach social consequences to abuse and don’t give much kudos to abusive behaviour.
However, where a norm of abusive interaction emerges in a context, this downgrades the discourse overall over time because smart and polite people start to not bother engaging. It becomes self-perpetuating.
When it gets bad enough, such as on youtube, this also creates a context in which it’s less about debate and interaction at all and more about just splurging your opinion out there without caring who sees it.
It’s assumed that removing anonymity will reduce abusive behaviour online. For example, youtube recently reduced the potential to be anonymous on their site, allegedly in the hope of decreasing the rampant abuse. But I tend to think it won’t, and might actually hurt innocent site users in exposing them to potential personal abuse more than it will discourage abusive behaviour.
Removing anonymity technically ought to introduce consequences, reducing the influence of aspect 1) and somewhat decreasing aspect 4) in making the venting less ‘safe’. However, aspect 2) and 3) of say, youtube, are still there with or without anonymity, and aspects 4) and 5) are a really strong draw for people regardless of the consequences. Moreover, the risks involved personally in commenting may well seem low enough to be worth it.
Anonymity also doesn’t necessitate in itself a lack of accountability. For example on a pseudonymous context like a forum where there’s an actual community, point 1) and point 2) and 3) may no longer apply- you have an investment in an identity and an ‘image’ to consider, that builds up over time in a community. This doesn’t make for the same kind of context where people just vent what they think, as they do in drive-by comments or tumblr posts where they are briefly engaging someone they will never have contact with again. Another example is that on tumblr, depending on the kind of followers you’ve attracted, suddenly launching into vicious attacks upon others may well drive your followers away, and if you care about that it will dissuade you. This is why people use ‘anon’ to dish out hate more easily than they use their established tumblr identities- because it reduces consequences.
Moreover, I think that there are plenty offline contexts where a similar dynamic of the drive-by abusive commenter happens- when people yell abuse at people or harass them on the street. Issues 1) and 2) and 3) and often 5) are all still present in this scenario, and sometimes 4). Moreover, 1, 2, 3 AND 4) and potentially 5) kind of apply in a modified way to customer service situations a lot of the time, which is why abuse of people working in customer service is common. Bullying offline is I think usually a combination of aspects 1, 2, and 5, with occasional helpings of 4) and 3).
It’s not directly anonymity that’s the issue, it’s more about the lack of investment, the safety, and the lack of consequences. Anonymity is a means of helping to create these aspects in interaction, but it is not a pre-requisite. Reducing anonymity may not in itself significantly alter the perception that there won’t be consequences or that it isn’t safe to comment, and where there are still major draws to being abusive, it will still happen.
The GOP has a plan to stop Wendy Davis: blatant voter suppression.
Women don’t like having their bodies policed, and are supporting Davis like no Democrat has been backed before. But Republicans aren’t fighting back on the issues — they’ve pushed through a Voter ID law that blocks the votes of countless Texas women.
Starting this November, Texans must show a photo ID with their up-to-date legal name instead of IDs like a birth certificate. That’s not a problem for single or married men — but it leaves a third of Texas women scrambling in a state with just 81 DMVs in its 254 counties.
The only way the GOP can keep Texas is by rigging the game. Women have the power to turn this state blue for the first time in two decades, but we need to help secure their rights first. Please, join us in calling on the Texas legislature to get rid of this unconstitutional Voter ID lawand stop trying to strip women of their votes.
DANGER! DANGER FOR TEXAS WOMEN!
Just a few hours left for the Broken Telephone Kickstarter! Thanks SO MUCH to everyone who donated to the project, or shared the link.
Please keep donating! We’re not quite funded. Not only that, but the money raised so far is JUST to pay the artists involved! Ryan deserves to get paid for his hard work. He’s worked for years to make this project a reality, is an absolute pleasure to deal with, and is an advocate for comic artist’s rights. PLEASE HELP RYAN GET SOME MONEY!
My cat took up residence in the christmas tree.
oh gosh she’s gonna be so sad when the tree goes away
Messages of Christmas Songs
Santa Baby - Excessive, gross materialism, creepy implications of making Santa a sugar daddy
Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer- Bullying as a result of physical differences is only worth fighting if someone proves themselves useful
Baby It’s Cold Outside- Inclement weather is a good excuse to pressure someone into spending the night.
Frosty the Snowman - Ice golems are appropriate substitutes for human companionship.
let’s not even get started on The Christmas Shoes