Look! The Jesus from Swiebodzin is going away <3
Look! The Jesus from Swiebodzin is going away <3
Hi guys! Meet Bryan Fischer! By now most of you must have heard about him and his… something.
(I have to confess, internets, I have trouble with labeling this properly. I mean, sure, it’s written stuff, so I should theoretically be able to call this “an editorial”, but IDK, internets. It might be because I’m not a native speaker, but I’m sort of used to editorials having, I don’t know, some actual content that is not 100% bullshit? I mean, it is AFA we’re talking about, and one should not set one’s expectations too high; in fact one should be resign oneself to coming across some very disturbing imagery — and why isn’t it rated R or something? I mean, I’m old and cynical, but I still (insert a hideous grimace) — and complete bullshit, and one has to brace oneself properly in order to face it without recoiling in disgust –and can I get a medal for that? — but still, I could not possibly call this “an editorial”. Let’s just call it “Bryan Fischer’s Thing“)
But, first things first! Like many of you, right after I finished snickering over Bryan Fischer’s Thing, I immediately asked myself ~who the fuck is Bryan Fischer~??? Because much as I pride myself in knowing about the barbarian hordes of rabid fundamentalists and the inanities and absurdities they typically bring forth, I am, after all, only human. Some arseholes will always be overlooked.
So, here’s Bryan Fischer’s bio. It has a lot of words like “values” and “Christian”, which make me all cross-eyed and squinchy-faced, so I almost didn’t read it. Almost.
What we can find out from the bio is:
– Bryan Fischer’s had very little fun in his miserable life
– Bryan Fischer likes to present himself as a moral and principled person. However, all the principles he stans for can only be defended at the expense of many other people, none of whom are Bryan Fischer
– Bryan Fischer has devoted his life to the very manly idea of being a professional fundamentalist
Altogether not very interesting. However if one googles some, as one does, one will find out that:
– Bryan Fischer believes that Hitler was gay and his gayness somehow made him so bloodthirsty that he started WWII and the Holocaust. Therefore gay people should not be allowed to serve in the military lest they become the next Hitler:
Homosexuality gave us Adolph Hitler, and homosexuals in the military gave us the Brown Shirts, the Nazi war machine and six million dead Jews. Gays in the military is an experiment that has been tried and found disastrously and tragically wanting. Maybe it’s time for Congress to learn a lesson from history (source).
– Bryan Fischer believes that all Muslim people are hellbent on killing all non-Muslim people, and therefore should not be allowed to serve in the military. It is not clear whether being Muslim played any role in Hitler’s upbringing:
It is time, I suggest, to stop the practice of allowing Muslims to serve in the U.S. military. The reason is simple: the more devout a Muslim is, the more of a threat he is to national security (source).
– Bryan Fischer is no homophobe, he merely argues for a more free market than just a free market. The connection between Hitler and the free market remains unclear:
Special rights for homosexuals in the workplace: problem solved. No employer should be forced to hire admitted felons to work for him. End of the threat to freedom of religion and freedom of association in the marketplace (source).
– Bryan Fischer really hates bears, the curse upon the land. Hitler couldn’t be reached for a comment:
One human being is worth more than an infinite number of grizzly bears. Another way to put it is that there is no number of live grizzlies worth one dead human being. If it’s a choice between grizzlies and humans, the grizzlies have to go. And it’s time.
God makes it clear in Scripture that deaths of people and livestock at the hands of savage beasts is a sign that the land is under a curse. The tragic thing here is that we are bringing this curse upon ourselves (source).
That sure puts Ficher’s Thing into perspective. Also, possible diagnosis of heavy military fetishism?
Anyway! As a typical European defeatist pacifist feminist commie, I don’t actually like people who make a living by killing other people when they’re told to, i.e. the military. However, it’s nice when they do something nice, like helping people affected by natural disasters, saving kittens, saving people from being victims of genocide or not doing their job, i.e., not killing people.
Alas! Bryan Fischer just thinks that when soldiers don’t kill as many people as possible they’re just sissies:
But I have noticed a disturbing trend in the awarding of these medals, which few others seem to have recognized.
We have feminized the Medal of Honor (source).
Note the gratuitous misogyny.
According to Bill McGurn of the Wall Street Journal, every Medal of Honor awarded during these two conflicts has been awarded for saving life. Not one has been awarded for inflicting casualties on the enemy. Not one (same source).
The horror. It should be obvious that one plans a war having a complete annihilation of the enemy in mind, and not, like, you know, achieving a particular goal. The more carnage the better. The public likes nothing more than seeing mutilated bodies of the enemy soldiers and civilians on the news, especially if they’re children.
(The public is manly that way)
In fact, somebody got a Nobel Peace Prize for that some time ago. Really.
When we think of heroism in battle, we used the think of our boys storming the beaches of Normandy under withering fire, climbing the cliffs of Pointe do Hoc while enemy soldiers fired straight down on them, and tossing grenades into pill boxes to take out gun emplacements (same source).
Aw, what a pretty sight!
Note that the only thing Fischer could have possibly ~*storm*~ was his local branch of Dunkin’ Donuts.
Incidentally, how difficult it is to grasp that even during WWII the objective was not to kill as many Nazis soldiers as possible, but maybe to end the war in such a way that the ally losses are as little as possible as soon as possible? This is not Halo, FFS.
I would suggest our culture has become so feminized that we have become squeamish at the thought of the valor that is expressed in killing enemy soldiers through acts of bravery (same source).
How is throwing a grenade a brave act? How is it courageous to bomb a city? What’s so brave about using an automatic weapon to shoot people?
(Or bears, we should add, bearing in mind who we’re talking about, people or bears)
We know instinctively that we should honor courage, but shy away from honoring courage if it results in the taking of life rather than in just the saving of life (same source).
Next time a USian plane accidentally bombs an Afghani village, by all means do tell me how honorable and courageous it was.
Certainly more ~*manly*~ than ~*just*~ saving a life.
(By the way, how many lives, people’s or bears’, did Bryan Fischer save that he can talk about it in such a flippant way? I’d go with none, but what do I know)
The significance of the cross is not just that Jesus laid down his life for us, but that he defeated the enemy of our souls in the process. It was on the cross that he crushed the head of the serpent. It was on the cross that “he disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in it” (Colossians 2:15) (same source).
That’s very vivid. Was Jesus a member of a military, though?
I don’t think so. Fortunately, there’s always this:
Well, back to reading now <3
Read only 100 pages. Feel unworthy to live.
Nowadays, in Europe we can still sometimes observe the strong opposition between the City and the provinces, or the city and the countryside, or the Capital and other cities. This opposition often has the form of ridiculous snobbish posturing and frankly laughable claims about the “true” city-dweller (hint: one’s ancestors would have had to be city-dwellers since at least 4 generations), often the word “bourgeoisie” is used as it is something positive (hint: it is not).
Almost 350 years ago on another continent, the absurd situation was also noticed by Ihara Saikaku:
So, this was the capital. People in Kyoto had eyes and noses like everyone else it seemed, and even though this group hailed from Osaka their arms and legs were attached in much the same way.
However, Saikaku failed to make the last step and break the vicious circle of bourgeois hate:
As he crossed the crmbling bridge at Shijou, he was spotted by a most unusual-looking man who could not have been more unmistakably from the north country if he had worna sign around his neck announcing the fact.
Well, that might have well been 350 years ago, but what’s the excuse in 2010?
(Ihara Saikaku, The Great Mirror of Male Love, translated and with introduction by Paul Gordon Schalow)
Once you have a dirty mind, apparently you just can’t stop making this sort of connections:
but then it retracts again(1))
Apparently, for some pornographers, telescopes were very evocative of penises.
(Translation: The place we’re heading to now
is the where the telescopes are
on the Yushima hill(1))
Apparently, other pornographers were clever enough to notice that the Yushima hill had plenty of telescopes-telescopes and male prostitutes with their telescopes, and promptly exploited the bad (oh Cthulhu, so bad) pun in poetry.
Earth, it’s such an amazing place to live.
Even without a telescope (to look at the stars)
ETA: Poems quoted in: Screech, Timon, Sex and the Floating World.
(1) This is my own translation, which means: 1) it’s very loose, 2) the innuendo is translated without regard for the literal meaning 3) also, I fail as a translator and human being, and also should never touch any poetry ever with my filthy little fingers that are connected to a mind that hates poetry and defaults to prose immediately, and woe. Woe!
(I’m reading Introduction to Modern Mathematics right now. It’s very entertaining)
Anyway, in 1967 children were learning too:
The little girl, showing in her domestic play the overriding absorption in personal relationships through which she will later fulfill her role of wife, mother and “expressive leader” of the family (Parsons & Bales, 1956), learns language early in order to communicate. The kind of communication in which she is chiefly interested at this stage concerns the nurturant routines which are the stuff of family life. Sharing and talking about them as she copies and “helps” her mother about the house must enhance the mutual identification of mother and child, which in turn, as Mowrer (1952) and McCarthy (1953) suggest, will reinforce imitation of the mother’s speech and promote further acquisition of language, at first oriented toward domestic and interpersonal affairs but later adapted to other uses as well. Her intellectual performance is relatively predictable because it is rooted in thi early communication, which enables her (environment permitting) to display her inherited potential at an early age.
The same thing happens in boys, but to a lesser extent because they cannot so easily share their interests. Their preoccupation with the working of mechanical things is less interesting to most mothers, and fathers are much less available. Probably too, effective communication about cause and effect presupposes a later stage of mental development than does communication about household routines. The small boy may be storing a great many observations, but his conversation tends to be limited to such remarks as Train stop until he is mature enough to ask Why is the train stopping? … His language, less fluent and personal and later to appear than the girl’s, develops along more analytic lines and may, in favourable circumstances, provide the groundwork for the later intellectual achievement which could not have been foreseen in his first few years.
(Moore 1967, pp. 100-101, cited in Macaulay 1978, p. 360, cited in Eckert, McConnell-Ginet, Language and Gender, 2003)
One has to mention that while extremely creepy, biased and unquestioningly supportive of the extant social order, this sort of pseudoscientific attitude is by no means gone. One only has to smirk derisively at The Female Brain, and lo, its brainless savanna-dwelling adherents come out of the woodwork, mumbling incoherent things about “savanna ancestors”, “hunting and gathering” and “men needing to rape because evolution and also science”, desperately trying to defend the pseudoscience that validates their biases, bigotry and prejudice.
(Incidentally, having read Mark Liberman’s deconstruction of The Female Brain — and other poorly done/described neuroscience research — one has to come to the conclusion that Louann Brizendine is a fraud and a kook. There are only so many end notes that give references to research that doesn’t support her most important claims — or in many cases has nothing to do with her claims at all — one can read without suspecting foul play(1). Or possibly, she didn’t understand a word of what she hopefully *did* read.)
(Also, there are rumours that there’s a neat deconstruction of Brizendine in Cordelia Fine‘s Delusions of Gender, which I haven’t yet read, and which was recommended on PZ Myers’ blog earlier today. The comment section of that post is, predictably, filled with angry ape-descended savanna-dwellers. For them, I have a message: guise, penis enlargement stuff can be found in the “spam” folder of your mailbox. Have fun!)
(1) Liberman never says it, repeatedly assuming Brizendine’s good will. This is because he’s a nice and also a serious person.
I am neither.
In 1884 J.W. Burgon says about the radical idea that women should be admited to universities:
Will none of you have the generosity of the candour to tell [Woman] what a very disagreeable creature, in Man’s account, she will inevitably become? If she is to compete successfully with men for ‘honours’, you must needs put the classic writers of antiquity unreservedly in her hands – in order words, must introduce her to the obscenities of Greek and Roman literature. Can you seriously intend it? … I take leave of the subject with a short Allocution addressed to the other sex … Inferior to us God made you: and our inferiors to the end of time you will remain.”
(Quoted in Manguel, A History of Reading, after Jan Morris, ed., The Oxford Book of Oxford)
126 years later, if there’s one thing I can vouch for, it’s that I have become the disagreeable creature — so disagreeable in fact that she demands to be called “human”, not “creature” — Burgon seemed to be so afraid of; and also, it was not Suetonius’ fault.
Not even Cicero’s, or Caesar’s.
I’ll take the whole responsibility for that. Disagreeably. Hah.