What is bliss? Have you wondered? Wonder no more, my preciouses. I'll tell you. In fact, I'll paint you a picture.
A Saturday morning. I am sitting on the carpet in my jammies and watching a movie called Alien Apocalypse on cable. The plot is very gripping. Something about someone or the other coming back to earth from somewhere in space and finding humans being ruled by giant bugs.
No, it's not a documentary about George W. Bush. It is a sci-fi flick.
The acting is Oscar material of course. And the bugs look very realistic. In fact, they look exactly like a bunch of underpaid actors in giant plastic shells. You can't get any more realistic than that.
After watching for some time, I've figured out that there are two important differences between the humans and bugs which have allowed all this planet-taking-over business.
1. The bugs have more arms.
2. They are better actors.
This Saturday could not be more perfect.
I'm pulling for the bugs.
Sermon #666
Shit happens. Bumper stickers have proved this beyond all debate.
But good things also happen. When good things happen, we thank god. Especially when good things happen after bad things. Then we really thank god.
I think that we often confuse our own strength, our own resilience, and our belief in ourselves for the Hand of God.
Never lose belief in yourself. If you stop believing in god, you'll still live. If you stop believing in yourself, you're pretty much finished.
Note: The above can be construed as non-mathematical but intuitive proof that you are more kickass than god any day of the week. Give yourself a pat.
But good things also happen. When good things happen, we thank god. Especially when good things happen after bad things. Then we really thank god.
I think that we often confuse our own strength, our own resilience, and our belief in ourselves for the Hand of God.
Never lose belief in yourself. If you stop believing in god, you'll still live. If you stop believing in yourself, you're pretty much finished.
Note: The above can be construed as non-mathematical but intuitive proof that you are more kickass than god any day of the week. Give yourself a pat.
And meanwhile, in Sudan
British teacher gets 15 days and deportation for her un-Islamic ways.
Well, what can I say... it could have been worse.
Well, what can I say... it could have been worse.
Elections in Gujarat, Tehelka, etc.
Why do some people express suprise that Modi was elected in a landslide in Gujarat after the Godhra riots? I understand expressions of horror, but why fucking surprise? Why say stuff like, "I still can't believe Modi was elected...".
What's not to believe? Barely two months after thousands of Sikhs were butchered like animals on the streets of a major world capital, the WHOLE OF INDIA voted Rajiv Gandhi into office with the largest majority that the Indian Parliament has known. A parliament that holds office in that same city. Read that again carefully: the whole of fucking India.
Gujarat is a part of India. The part simply displayed a property of the whole. What's not to believe?
What's...fucking...not...to...believe?
I sometimes wish I was not born in India.
What's not to believe? Barely two months after thousands of Sikhs were butchered like animals on the streets of a major world capital, the WHOLE OF INDIA voted Rajiv Gandhi into office with the largest majority that the Indian Parliament has known. A parliament that holds office in that same city. Read that again carefully: the whole of fucking India.
Gujarat is a part of India. The part simply displayed a property of the whole. What's not to believe?
What's...fucking...not...to...believe?
I sometimes wish I was not born in India.
Financial markets for the Easily Confused
Thanks to the recent credit crisis in the United States, I am learning a lot about financial markets. But larnin' is hard, so I have come up with a rough but handy glossary to stop me from getting confused every three seconds. Here is what I have so far.
Structured Investment Vehicles : Crappy Loans.
Alt-A Mortgages: Basically giving awaysometimes your money without your permission, and not to charity.
Our portfolio of structured investment vehicles has softened due to the situation in the credit markets: You own stock in our company? Ha, ha, you poor fool.
We are taking a writedown this quarter: Some (insanely wealthy) numbnuts is getting handed the pink slip at our company for making a bunch of crappy loans, but boy, you should see the severance package.
We are taking a writedown this quarter, but it is less than we expected: We got into the crappy-loanmaking game late.
Structured Investment Vehicles : Crappy Loans.
Alt-A Mortgages: Basically giving away
Our portfolio of structured investment vehicles has softened due to the situation in the credit markets: You own stock in our company? Ha, ha, you poor fool.
We are taking a writedown this quarter: Some (insanely wealthy) numbnuts is getting handed the pink slip at our company for making a bunch of crappy loans, but boy, you should see the severance package.
We are taking a writedown this quarter, but it is less than we expected: We got into the crappy-loanmaking game late.
Only words
In the languages that I speak, there is no taxonomy of the obvious. We do not name default positions. That is why "bald" (not the usual condition) is a word, but there is no word like "hairheaded" or "hairful". "One-armed" is a word, but I have never heard the word "two-armed" used to describe somebody, since well...it would be sorta redundant.
We name the deviations from the norm, but we don't usually have words for the norm.
That is why it is my unswerving opinion that any society that has the word "feminist" in currency stinks to high heaven because something is terribly wrong with that society. In an enlightened society, the word would be a meaningless default.
I believe that at some point in time, identifying yourself as an abolitionist had the side-effect of identifying your surroundings as fucked up beyond belief. I don't see how identifying yourself as a feminist is any different.
We name the deviations from the norm, but we don't usually have words for the norm.
That is why it is my unswerving opinion that any society that has the word "feminist" in currency stinks to high heaven because something is terribly wrong with that society. In an enlightened society, the word would be a meaningless default.
I believe that at some point in time, identifying yourself as an abolitionist had the side-effect of identifying your surroundings as fucked up beyond belief. I don't see how identifying yourself as a feminist is any different.
Bose
Subhash Bose is a much debated figure. Was he a hero, or was he an opportunist who teamed up with Fascists?
I get asked about Bose.
It is assumed that since I am a Bengali, I am an automatic expert on Bose. I am not. My knowledge of Bose is approximately equal to my knowledge of Bal Gangadhar Tilak or Chandrasekhar Azad. But I do know some.
The concerns expressed are:
1. Why did he ally with Imperial Japan and seek the help of Nazi Germany? That would make him an imperialist Fascist.
I have a couple of close friends who are Americans, Indophiles, and history buffs. This question comes mostly from them, and there is an undertone of horror. He was a Nazi! The horror! There is rich irony here, because that sort of logic also leads to the inescapable conclusion that the United States is, at this point in time, a military dictatorship. Don't get it? Well, the United States collaborates with Pakistan, and if Pakistan is a military dictatorship, then...
I do not know if Subhash Bose was a Fascist. I don't think so, but I may be wrong. I do not know if his political views would have aligned with mine. Or even, clearly, what his political views were. I have a vague idea that he admired authoritarian forms of government like in Soviet Union and Germany. I think that he was a military leader first. He did not get a chance to become a political leader. My belief is that India would not be a democracy (for what that's worth) if Subhash Bose had kicked out the English and then taken control of independent India. I think he would have been dictator. Whether he would have been an enlightened one, we'll never know.
2. Wouldn't the Japanese have grabbed India if the British were defeated by the alliance of the Japanese and INA? How was Bose planning to deal with the Japanese in the long term?
I don't know. My belief is that history would have run this course. If Subhash Bose had won, either he (or the Japanese) would have taken control. After the defeat of Japan by the Allied forces, Britain would have attacked India to regain control, possibly with covert American support. This would have been very similar to the French attack on Vietnam after World War II, with possibly similar results.
We'll never know the true course of history for sure of course, but I am almost sure that were I alive then, I would have joined the army. Just to see the sumbitch J. Nehru in fatigues and actually doing something useful for the country for a change. I would risk life and limb to see that.
I would also have liked to see Mohandas Gandhi faced with this delicate choice: Either stick to non-violence in the face of British attack and, in effect, advocate a reversion of free India to British rule, OR take up arms and renounce his cherished notion of non-violence under all conditions. What would he have chosen to become? A violent patriot, or a non-violent traitor? An interesting choice indeed.
I get asked about Bose.
It is assumed that since I am a Bengali, I am an automatic expert on Bose. I am not. My knowledge of Bose is approximately equal to my knowledge of Bal Gangadhar Tilak or Chandrasekhar Azad. But I do know some.
The concerns expressed are:
1. Why did he ally with Imperial Japan and seek the help of Nazi Germany? That would make him an imperialist Fascist.
I have a couple of close friends who are Americans, Indophiles, and history buffs. This question comes mostly from them, and there is an undertone of horror. He was a Nazi! The horror! There is rich irony here, because that sort of logic also leads to the inescapable conclusion that the United States is, at this point in time, a military dictatorship. Don't get it? Well, the United States collaborates with Pakistan, and if Pakistan is a military dictatorship, then...
I do not know if Subhash Bose was a Fascist. I don't think so, but I may be wrong. I do not know if his political views would have aligned with mine. Or even, clearly, what his political views were. I have a vague idea that he admired authoritarian forms of government like in Soviet Union and Germany. I think that he was a military leader first. He did not get a chance to become a political leader. My belief is that India would not be a democracy (for what that's worth) if Subhash Bose had kicked out the English and then taken control of independent India. I think he would have been dictator. Whether he would have been an enlightened one, we'll never know.
2. Wouldn't the Japanese have grabbed India if the British were defeated by the alliance of the Japanese and INA? How was Bose planning to deal with the Japanese in the long term?
I don't know. My belief is that history would have run this course. If Subhash Bose had won, either he (or the Japanese) would have taken control. After the defeat of Japan by the Allied forces, Britain would have attacked India to regain control, possibly with covert American support. This would have been very similar to the French attack on Vietnam after World War II, with possibly similar results.
We'll never know the true course of history for sure of course, but I am almost sure that were I alive then, I would have joined the army. Just to see the sumbitch J. Nehru in fatigues and actually doing something useful for the country for a change. I would risk life and limb to see that.
I would also have liked to see Mohandas Gandhi faced with this delicate choice: Either stick to non-violence in the face of British attack and, in effect, advocate a reversion of free India to British rule, OR take up arms and renounce his cherished notion of non-violence under all conditions. What would he have chosen to become? A violent patriot, or a non-violent traitor? An interesting choice indeed.
Sophia
In my meanderings across the interwebs, I came across the meaning of the name "Sophia". It means "wisdom".
I love these moments. The moments when you see something in a new light. With new eyes. It's like falling in love with a longstanding, familiar friend. I have heard that name a million times. On people, on places. But something fell into place with a click when I read what it means. It makes sense: sophisticated, sophistry, philosophy...Sophia.
Everything is interconnected. We just have to find the connections.
...
Ok, my dweeb moment is over.
I love these moments. The moments when you see something in a new light. With new eyes. It's like falling in love with a longstanding, familiar friend. I have heard that name a million times. On people, on places. But something fell into place with a click when I read what it means. It makes sense: sophisticated, sophistry, philosophy...Sophia.
Everything is interconnected. We just have to find the connections.
...
Ok, my dweeb moment is over.
Sermon #567
Always follow your instincts, even if some of the time they lead you down gangbang alley.
Always.
If you live, you will live better.
The fine print, for legal purposes:
1. The author assumes that users of the above product and/or advice have an understanding of the risks of the product and/or advice. The user acknowledges all liability shall be excluded from all forward-looking statements of benefit made by the author.
2. As in: Your mileage will fukkin vary. If you burn, tough cookies.
3. The user acknowledges that it shall be unreasonable to hold the author liable for any damages arising from the use of the product and/or advice.
4. The product is sold as-is and without any warranty, express or implied.
5. The management reserves the right to withdraw the product and all aftermarket support at any time and without notice.
6. Nyah.
7. The user agrees to not reproduce, duplicate, copy, sell, resell, modify, or otherwise exploit the product for a commercial purpose, without the author's express written consent. Because there shall be consequences.
8. Unless the user does it vewy vewy quietly while the author is watching Law and Order.
9. The author wishes to make it clear and beyond legal doubt that the above advice to follow instincts and suchlike does not apply to certified morons. They should not follow anything. If you are in the situation of being an unmitigated moron and have the creds to prove it, your best bet would be to sit very still and not make any sudden moves. In fact, your goal should be to get through life with a minimum of activity to least do damage to yourself and others.
10. The author has a nagging feeling that the above clause might limit his own use of the product somewhat. The author will ponder this feeling deeply (meaning with the help of tequila mojitos) this weekend.
11. If the ads for this product fool you, it may not necessarily be that the ads are clever; they might just be taking advantage of a pre-existing condition.
12. But your mother still loves you.
13. Like she has a choice.
14. The author will readily exchange all rights and royalties associated with this product for those truffles with the crunchy bits inside.
Always.
If you live, you will live better.
The fine print, for legal purposes:
1. The author assumes that users of the above product and/or advice have an understanding of the risks of the product and/or advice. The user acknowledges all liability shall be excluded from all forward-looking statements of benefit made by the author.
2. As in: Your mileage will fukkin vary. If you burn, tough cookies.
3. The user acknowledges that it shall be unreasonable to hold the author liable for any damages arising from the use of the product and/or advice.
4. The product is sold as-is and without any warranty, express or implied.
5. The management reserves the right to withdraw the product and all aftermarket support at any time and without notice.
6. Nyah.
7. The user agrees to not reproduce, duplicate, copy, sell, resell, modify, or otherwise exploit the product for a commercial purpose, without the author's express written consent. Because there shall be consequences.
8. Unless the user does it vewy vewy quietly while the author is watching Law and Order.
9. The author wishes to make it clear and beyond legal doubt that the above advice to follow instincts and suchlike does not apply to certified morons. They should not follow anything. If you are in the situation of being an unmitigated moron and have the creds to prove it, your best bet would be to sit very still and not make any sudden moves. In fact, your goal should be to get through life with a minimum of activity to least do damage to yourself and others.
10. The author has a nagging feeling that the above clause might limit his own use of the product somewhat. The author will ponder this feeling deeply (meaning with the help of tequila mojitos) this weekend.
11. If the ads for this product fool you, it may not necessarily be that the ads are clever; they might just be taking advantage of a pre-existing condition.
12. But your mother still loves you.
13. Like she has a choice.
14. The author will readily exchange all rights and royalties associated with this product for those truffles with the crunchy bits inside.
Jesus Christ, The Musical
Check out the link below. Absolutely hilarious. I was rolling on the floor laughing.
Click this link.
On the topic of videos, more breathtaking art here: Click.
And from a previous post: Just imagine.
Click this link.
On the topic of videos, more breathtaking art here: Click.
And from a previous post: Just imagine.
Jump
Jump, first off, is a verb. How can you go wrong with a positive verb?
--David Lee Roth, talking about the Van Halen single, Jump
Jump was a huge song. I loved the big-hair bands of the eighties--Van Halen, Journey, Deep Purple, Scorpions. That was my golden age of music.
Ah well.
Quick, what do we tell the wife?
Let Haneef return with self-respect, says wife
I feel bad for her.
Large and organized religions can sometimes be a very sweet deal for men, aye, but I hold that women have been routinely shortchanged by religion. A fundamental wisdom of large religions has been that women are either auction-ready chattel or are to be avoided. Hardly a flattering assessment.
I am fairly certain that women have only a passing tolerance for loud religion-mongering. All the philosophical dickwaving about whose god has the bigger biceps leaves them cold. Religion is far more personal to women than it is to men; they might nod and smile at their husbands or boyfriends out of patient consideration, but I suspect that they mostly go along to get along.
I further suspect that they are faintly amused when they see the reflecting on deep cosmic questions by someone who on any given day cannot reliably locate his laundry.
There is a reason why there is little empowerment of women in deeply religious societies. Otherwise it would be a huge problem for the men there. Because then, when we start going on about global Jihad or bringing the light of Christ to the world or banning Orkut for its anti-Hindu messages, they would tell us to shut the fuck up and take the eight o'clock to work.
Most religion is, to put it simply, anti-women, and I think that quite a few women have the smarts to instinctively latch on to this truth.
This is why I am amazed when I see the occasional woman come down violently on the side of Allah, or the laws of Manu, or whatever-the-fuck. I am amazed because I find it hard to reconcile myself to the sort of denial and obtuseness that this requires.
A woman coming out and marching for religion is like fattened beef-cattle handing out flyers for Outback Steakhouse.
But I ramble on so.
To repeat, I feel bad for Firdous Ashriya. Indeed, I feel bad for all women who put up with the shite that we put out in the name of our respective sky-genies.
I feel bad for her.
Large and organized religions can sometimes be a very sweet deal for men, aye, but I hold that women have been routinely shortchanged by religion. A fundamental wisdom of large religions has been that women are either auction-ready chattel or are to be avoided. Hardly a flattering assessment.
I am fairly certain that women have only a passing tolerance for loud religion-mongering. All the philosophical dickwaving about whose god has the bigger biceps leaves them cold. Religion is far more personal to women than it is to men; they might nod and smile at their husbands or boyfriends out of patient consideration, but I suspect that they mostly go along to get along.
I further suspect that they are faintly amused when they see the reflecting on deep cosmic questions by someone who on any given day cannot reliably locate his laundry.
There is a reason why there is little empowerment of women in deeply religious societies. Otherwise it would be a huge problem for the men there. Because then, when we start going on about global Jihad or bringing the light of Christ to the world or banning Orkut for its anti-Hindu messages, they would tell us to shut the fuck up and take the eight o'clock to work.
Most religion is, to put it simply, anti-women, and I think that quite a few women have the smarts to instinctively latch on to this truth.
This is why I am amazed when I see the occasional woman come down violently on the side of Allah, or the laws of Manu, or whatever-the-fuck. I am amazed because I find it hard to reconcile myself to the sort of denial and obtuseness that this requires.
A woman coming out and marching for religion is like fattened beef-cattle handing out flyers for Outback Steakhouse.
But I ramble on so.
To repeat, I feel bad for Firdous Ashriya. Indeed, I feel bad for all women who put up with the shite that we put out in the name of our respective sky-genies.
Pratibha, Pritam, Putli Bai... what's the difference? What the hell do we need a President for? Show me an Indian who likes rolling up his money and smoking it, and I'll show you someone who needs a President.
Idiocy enshrined in the Constitution is still idiocy.
Empty Rashtrapati Bhavan and turn the fucker into a creche or something.
Idiocy enshrined in the Constitution is still idiocy.
Empty Rashtrapati Bhavan and turn the fucker into a creche or something.
Simply beautiful
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdDHsehW01M
Art can be additive or subtractive. Layering oil on canvas is additive. Sculpting a figure from a block of stone is subtractive. This one here seems to be both.
Just breathtakingly beautiful. Watch it.
Art can be additive or subtractive. Layering oil on canvas is additive. Sculpting a figure from a block of stone is subtractive. This one here seems to be both.
Just breathtakingly beautiful. Watch it.
Is there a man in manmohan?
Don't target any community: PM to UK
Why does this insect not miss the slightest opportunity to go and grovel before foreigners, just so he can mollify a militant vote bank at home?
Why do I cram a question and an answer in the same sentence?
Why does this insect not miss the slightest opportunity to go and grovel before foreigners, just so he can mollify a militant vote bank at home?
Why do I cram a question and an answer in the same sentence?
I'm swearing off Rediff
Glasgow attackers were resigned to death: Cops
That's it. No more rediff for me. When a newspaper starts printing boldfaced lies, it's time to take your business elsewhere.
Stop lying to us rediff. Stop calling Khafeel Ahmed an Indian Muslim. What exactly are you smoking?
Even a particularly slow child knows that Indian Muslims don't do that. The bruthas just ain't down with that terrorism shit, man.
Dontchoo also know that it is required learning in High School Dhimmitude 101 and therefore common knowledge today that it is mostly lack of education and poverty that drives ordinary Muslims to have this sudden desire to turn uninvolved bystanders into charcoal? Educated, affluent Muslims just don't do this shit. So stop calling him an engineer. He can't possibly be. Where is your journalistic integrity?
Besides, Islam itself, having had a peaceful beginning and having been spread through a rough sort of homebred loving kindness, quite naturally does not sanction this sort of tomfoolery. I challenge you to show me one verse--just one--in the Quran that says: Thou shalt, with some regularity, bring burning trucks to the infidels. Can you? You can't. I knew it. Case closed.
Khafeel Ahmed is not Indian, not a Muslim, and not educated. I, for one, refuse to believe any of that bull. So stop with the lies already.
Wankers.
That's it. No more rediff for me. When a newspaper starts printing boldfaced lies, it's time to take your business elsewhere.
Stop lying to us rediff. Stop calling Khafeel Ahmed an Indian Muslim. What exactly are you smoking?
Even a particularly slow child knows that Indian Muslims don't do that. The bruthas just ain't down with that terrorism shit, man.
Dontchoo also know that it is required learning in High School Dhimmitude 101 and therefore common knowledge today that it is mostly lack of education and poverty that drives ordinary Muslims to have this sudden desire to turn uninvolved bystanders into charcoal? Educated, affluent Muslims just don't do this shit. So stop calling him an engineer. He can't possibly be. Where is your journalistic integrity?
Besides, Islam itself, having had a peaceful beginning and having been spread through a rough sort of homebred loving kindness, quite naturally does not sanction this sort of tomfoolery. I challenge you to show me one verse--just one--in the Quran that says: Thou shalt, with some regularity, bring burning trucks to the infidels. Can you? You can't. I knew it. Case closed.
Khafeel Ahmed is not Indian, not a Muslim, and not educated. I, for one, refuse to believe any of that bull. So stop with the lies already.
Wankers.
Pardon the Morbidity
There are certain expressions that I have never understood. One of them is: unnatural death.
What is an unnatural death? All death is natural. As a matter of fact, it seems to be mandated by nature. No exceptions. If you know of an exception, I would suggest that you publish.
Some people consider a homicide to be unnatural death. Do you consider that human death caused by another human is somehow more unnatural than death caused by bacteria? A human being is as much an agent of nature as is a bacterium. So what is unnatural about this? It may be sad, horrible, or illegal; but it is not unnatural.
Maybe what people really mean by unnatural death is premature death. But premature how? What would cause maturity in a person so that when he dies by whatever means, people no longer consider his death unnatural? Age? Reaching some sort of a goal?
What age makes a death natural? Or what goal does a human need to get to which will no longer make the rest of us classify his death as unnatural?
Getting to have sex?
Having children? (How many?)
Landing a good job?
Gathering wealth? (How much?)
Having made the world a better place? (Too vague; what makes the world a better place?)
So this entire business of what is natural or unnatural about a death seems to boil down to the question of some sort of a purpose of a human life, which when completed, makes us a little less uncomfortable about its end and stops us from calling it unnatural or unreal or whatever. So what is the purpose of a human life?
And no, "42" is not a good answer. And yes, I need a meaningful hobby.
What is an unnatural death? All death is natural. As a matter of fact, it seems to be mandated by nature. No exceptions. If you know of an exception, I would suggest that you publish.
Some people consider a homicide to be unnatural death. Do you consider that human death caused by another human is somehow more unnatural than death caused by bacteria? A human being is as much an agent of nature as is a bacterium. So what is unnatural about this? It may be sad, horrible, or illegal; but it is not unnatural.
Maybe what people really mean by unnatural death is premature death. But premature how? What would cause maturity in a person so that when he dies by whatever means, people no longer consider his death unnatural? Age? Reaching some sort of a goal?
What age makes a death natural? Or what goal does a human need to get to which will no longer make the rest of us classify his death as unnatural?
Getting to have sex?
Having children? (How many?)
Landing a good job?
Gathering wealth? (How much?)
Having made the world a better place? (Too vague; what makes the world a better place?)
So this entire business of what is natural or unnatural about a death seems to boil down to the question of some sort of a purpose of a human life, which when completed, makes us a little less uncomfortable about its end and stops us from calling it unnatural or unreal or whatever. So what is the purpose of a human life?
And no, "42" is not a good answer. And yes, I need a meaningful hobby.
Enough is enough!
I'm sick and fucking tired of a particular conversation that keeps happening between me and those who believe. The conversation goes roughly as below.
So what is wrong with that conversation, you ask. It seems like a natural conversation between an atheist and a believer. But it is not a natural conversation. It is a perverted, upside-down discourse. To see how that is so, let's turn that conversation on its head.
But the second conversation is not the norm in polite company, and the first one happens regularly. Do you know why? Because it is somehow assumed that the default position is the belief in a God who is all-loving, yet who sometimes unaccountably shoves giant tsunami-shaped dildos up humanity's ass to demonstrate his love. If wholesale and indiscriminate slaughter of men, women, and children is love, then fuck that shit. I spit on that love.
It is assumed that the default position is theism and we the skeptics are the deviation from this position. That is so assbackwards and fucked up that the mind boggles.
We are all born atheists. So that is the default position. And then, depending on which group of people get to brainwash you before you reach the age of consent, you start believing in an invisible sky bastard with the head of an elephant, or in a murderous goat-fucking Middle Eastern God pimped by a child molesting medieval Arab death merchant, or in a two thousand year old Jewish zombie who had to get nailed to a fucking tree just so you could safely screw over your friends and co-workers all your life, beat up your wife, jack off thinking about the neighbour's pre-teen daughter, and still get to go to heaven. It is so retarded that just the thought makes me want to throw up in my mouth a little.
Yet ninety percent of humanity believes in variations of this mind-numbing nonsense because it is easier and more comforting to simply accept the lies and bullshit fed to you by your family and peers instead of taking the harder road of thinking for yourself and making independent decisions about yourself. Pathetic.
Doesn't it strike you that if indeed there existed an omni-everything god with oversight of all humanity, the knowledge of this god would be uniform? That there would not be the need of pre-adolescent brainwashing by your well-meaning family and friends that turns you variously into Hindus, Muslims, and Christians. That you would instinctively be able to figure out which one the One True God is and not have to cut each other's throats to prove whose god is the bestest. You cannot do this automagically today because there is no fucking god.
No you see, I am not a skeptic. I am a regular average guy. You are fucking gullible.
Me: I don't believe in a God as is popularly defined.
You: Ah, so you are a skeptic. Skepticism is all well and good, but don't you think that there is something higher than you?
So what is wrong with that conversation, you ask. It seems like a natural conversation between an atheist and a believer. But it is not a natural conversation. It is a perverted, upside-down discourse. To see how that is so, let's turn that conversation on its head.
You: I believe in God.
Me: Ah, you're gullible. Gullibility is all well and good, but don't you think that the stark reality is that this is all that there is? No one is responsible for you but yourself.
But the second conversation is not the norm in polite company, and the first one happens regularly. Do you know why? Because it is somehow assumed that the default position is the belief in a God who is all-loving, yet who sometimes unaccountably shoves giant tsunami-shaped dildos up humanity's ass to demonstrate his love. If wholesale and indiscriminate slaughter of men, women, and children is love, then fuck that shit. I spit on that love.
It is assumed that the default position is theism and we the skeptics are the deviation from this position. That is so assbackwards and fucked up that the mind boggles.
We are all born atheists. So that is the default position. And then, depending on which group of people get to brainwash you before you reach the age of consent, you start believing in an invisible sky bastard with the head of an elephant, or in a murderous goat-fucking Middle Eastern God pimped by a child molesting medieval Arab death merchant, or in a two thousand year old Jewish zombie who had to get nailed to a fucking tree just so you could safely screw over your friends and co-workers all your life, beat up your wife, jack off thinking about the neighbour's pre-teen daughter, and still get to go to heaven. It is so retarded that just the thought makes me want to throw up in my mouth a little.
Yet ninety percent of humanity believes in variations of this mind-numbing nonsense because it is easier and more comforting to simply accept the lies and bullshit fed to you by your family and peers instead of taking the harder road of thinking for yourself and making independent decisions about yourself. Pathetic.
Doesn't it strike you that if indeed there existed an omni-everything god with oversight of all humanity, the knowledge of this god would be uniform? That there would not be the need of pre-adolescent brainwashing by your well-meaning family and friends that turns you variously into Hindus, Muslims, and Christians. That you would instinctively be able to figure out which one the One True God is and not have to cut each other's throats to prove whose god is the bestest. You cannot do this automagically today because there is no fucking god.
No you see, I am not a skeptic. I am a regular average guy. You are fucking gullible.
Morality is temporal
This morning, I listened to a man on radio who argued against same-sex marriage. I don't recall his name and I can't be arsed to find out, but he has apparently made a bit of a career defending the institution of marriage, i.e. he has written a book.
I don't recall the name of the book and I can't be arsed to find out, but I have it on good authority that it has pages and stuff.
The man was a guest on a liberal talk show, and so most people who called in asked unfriendly questions. Someone pointed out that marriage is a social contract. The definition of many social contracts has changed over time and people have changed their minds with it. So why didn't the guest be a little flexible and change his mind?
The guest answered that people have changed their minds when some worthy social issue was in question. If this was, say, giving women the vote, he would have changed his mind, but he would definitely not change his mind about men poking at each other's bums. No siree.
As I was listening to the guest on radio, it suddenly occurred to me that no matter what he says now, the guest would NOT have changed his mind about the things that he says are worth changing ones mind about. No matter what he says, a hundred years ago, he would have been up on a platform arguing that he fails to see why women will ever need to vote. Two hundred years ago, he would have been arguing that those dirty negroes have no damned business working for pay outside of a cotton field. Someone who loudly prescribes discrimination against a group of people today based on what end of a human they prefer to stick their willy into is not likely to have displayed liberal views yesterday.
But why dwell on a random conservative guest on talk radio? What happens when we raise the mirror to ourselves?
A lot of us possess this sort of a self-image bias. We believe that we are better than we really are. A lot of us believe that we are more moral, more liberal, more intellectual, and more talented than we are.
Morality is temporal. Most of us are completely comfortable defending the morality of long established notions. Even gay rights has been around for some time. But how many of us would have stood up for something when it was just a renegade idea? Today we support a woman's right to vote because somebody else fought for and won that cause. We express our approval of the result, not necessarily the cause. When we defend the equality of sexes, or the equality of races, or separation of religion and state, we defend a result. It is easy--and superfluous--to defend a victory. How many of us would, were we to be magically displaced in time, fight to actually win that victory? And how many of us, like this guest, would actually have fought against the cause that seems so natural now?
Don't see what I am saying? Well, consider these ideas which are not popular today and see how many of them you can get behind. How many urban Indian men would be comfortable with the idea of the complete sexual liberation of Indian women? Or at the very least press for a sexual standard for women equal to that applied to themselves? How many Indian men that you personally know would, in your estimate, take as completely normal the prospect of a marriage to someone with five previous relationships? How many Muslims in Islamic countries would stand up and defend the right to apostasy? How many Hindus still consider caste to be an important factor in marriage and sometimes in employment? And how many other Indians simply humour this first group and go along with the plan, instead of informing them, in straightforward language, that they are fucking idiots?
How many American politicians can publicly discuss their atheism without at the same time risking their careers? How many people would endorse the legality of completely polygamous relationships where many husbands live with many wives and raise unmarked children in a communal way, out of personal choice?
These ideas are not popular in their respective cultural domains because their time has not come. At some future time, when somebody has won the cause, we will vigorously defend these ideas. Some of us will appear on future talk shows and hold up these ideas as worthy causes, while simultaneously arguing against a an even futurer(?) idea. Almost certainly. But the question is, would we fight for them now?
I don't recall the name of the book and I can't be arsed to find out, but I have it on good authority that it has pages and stuff.
The man was a guest on a liberal talk show, and so most people who called in asked unfriendly questions. Someone pointed out that marriage is a social contract. The definition of many social contracts has changed over time and people have changed their minds with it. So why didn't the guest be a little flexible and change his mind?
The guest answered that people have changed their minds when some worthy social issue was in question. If this was, say, giving women the vote, he would have changed his mind, but he would definitely not change his mind about men poking at each other's bums. No siree.
As I was listening to the guest on radio, it suddenly occurred to me that no matter what he says now, the guest would NOT have changed his mind about the things that he says are worth changing ones mind about. No matter what he says, a hundred years ago, he would have been up on a platform arguing that he fails to see why women will ever need to vote. Two hundred years ago, he would have been arguing that those dirty negroes have no damned business working for pay outside of a cotton field. Someone who loudly prescribes discrimination against a group of people today based on what end of a human they prefer to stick their willy into is not likely to have displayed liberal views yesterday.
But why dwell on a random conservative guest on talk radio? What happens when we raise the mirror to ourselves?
A lot of us possess this sort of a self-image bias. We believe that we are better than we really are. A lot of us believe that we are more moral, more liberal, more intellectual, and more talented than we are.
Morality is temporal. Most of us are completely comfortable defending the morality of long established notions. Even gay rights has been around for some time. But how many of us would have stood up for something when it was just a renegade idea? Today we support a woman's right to vote because somebody else fought for and won that cause. We express our approval of the result, not necessarily the cause. When we defend the equality of sexes, or the equality of races, or separation of religion and state, we defend a result. It is easy--and superfluous--to defend a victory. How many of us would, were we to be magically displaced in time, fight to actually win that victory? And how many of us, like this guest, would actually have fought against the cause that seems so natural now?
Don't see what I am saying? Well, consider these ideas which are not popular today and see how many of them you can get behind. How many urban Indian men would be comfortable with the idea of the complete sexual liberation of Indian women? Or at the very least press for a sexual standard for women equal to that applied to themselves? How many Indian men that you personally know would, in your estimate, take as completely normal the prospect of a marriage to someone with five previous relationships? How many Muslims in Islamic countries would stand up and defend the right to apostasy? How many Hindus still consider caste to be an important factor in marriage and sometimes in employment? And how many other Indians simply humour this first group and go along with the plan, instead of informing them, in straightforward language, that they are fucking idiots?
How many American politicians can publicly discuss their atheism without at the same time risking their careers? How many people would endorse the legality of completely polygamous relationships where many husbands live with many wives and raise unmarked children in a communal way, out of personal choice?
These ideas are not popular in their respective cultural domains because their time has not come. At some future time, when somebody has won the cause, we will vigorously defend these ideas. Some of us will appear on future talk shows and hold up these ideas as worthy causes, while simultaneously arguing against a an even futurer(?) idea. Almost certainly. But the question is, would we fight for them now?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
The Cutest Human
Yeah, I am biased, but this is my daughter when she was seven or eight. Cute as a bug. This came up in a memories spotlight in Google Photos...
-
I sometimes go and idly look at the noisy, vast, labyrinthine spiderweb of the blogosphere. Some blogs are truly awe inspiring. A hundred li...
-
How fast are you moving right now? If you are reading this on your desktop computer, you might reply that you are not moving at all. If you ...
-
Balajee: I don't know if you are in the habit of reading the comments on my posts. Please see comment #5 on my last post, which is also ...