Anonymous said: Yo, Monday morning my coworker finds a mini copy of the new testament on her desk. She's Jewish. our office is on lock down on weekends and no one is admitting to it. I feel like she should pursue it.
She should set it on fire in front of everyone.
Also, who the fuck prints just the New Testament? What purpose could that possible have other than harassing Jewish people?
You clearly don’t know much about Christianity
I wish there was a snopes for tumblr bullshit.
It’d have to be pretty big…
Also there’s that thing where I think ‘should I maybe add to this’ and then see the post already has 25,000+ notes, so why bother?
Even if there was a feature where the ‘notes’ were filtered so you could see actual additions, instead of having to scroll through a sea of mute likes and reblogs, it would help.
I’m not quite sure that I even know what a liberal is tbh
Broadly speaking, liberal means taking a centerist position. The confusion comes from the fact that the further in either direction you go, the wider the centre becomes.
Anarchists think Communists are liberal because they maintain hierarchies, Communists think trade unionists are liberal because they maintain capitalism, trade unionists think the Labour Party are liberal because they broadly maintain the status quo, Tories think Labour are liberal because they don’t openly detest poor people, UKIP think the Tories are Liberal because they’re willing to be seen in the same room as an immigrant, the BNP think UKIP are liberals because they only want to stop immigration not deport all the effnicks, and white power groups think the BNP are liberals because they spend their time trying to get elected instead of … I dunno … shitting on their own faces, or whatever it is that lot enjoy doing.
Um… I think the confusion arises from there being several, sometimes overlapping definitions of ‘liberal’ which nevertheless cover a wide range of political opinions and relative positions. I explained some of this here with reference to The Knife: but basically there’s the political science definition which would be more in line with the original, historical ideology of individual freedoms (whether they be social or economic, the former becoming the popular US usage, as below, and the latter covering more what’s now called ‘neoliberal’) and then there’s a more subjective, rhetorically pejorative meaning that also has ‘right’ and ‘left’ variants, roughly corresponding to fears of either social or economic liberalism - e.g. a leftist might critique ‘liberals’ for supporting socially liberal ideas while ignoring economic inequalities and/or the underpinning structure of economically liberal societies, while a conservative may or may not support liberalisation of the economy, but usually opposes social liberalisation; although of course all that rests on a questionable division of ‘economy’ and ‘the social’).
That might not have ended up being too clarifiying, sorry - however, I don’t think ‘liberal’ really means centrist except by accident, or because it represents in some form one of the mainstream currents of western politics, or because it has turned into a pejorative for ‘less radical’ (more on the the left than the right I think… the Tory example rings false to me, or as an echo of the US bleeding-heart ‘liberal’).
"“The Labour movement is like no other movement. Its strength lies in being like no other movement. It is never so strong as when it stands alone. Other movements dread analysis and shun all attempts to define their objects. The Labour movement delights in analysing, and is perpetually defining and re-defining its principles and objects. The man or woman who has caught the spirit of the Labour movement brings that spirit of analysis and definition into all his or her public acts, and expects at all times to answer the call to define his or her position. They cannot live on illusions, nor thrive by them; even should their heads be in the clouds they will make no forward step until they are assured that their feet rest upon the solid earth.
“In this they are essentially different from the middle or professional classes, and the parties or movements controlled by such classes in Ireland. These always talk of realities, but nourish themselves and their followers upon the unsubstantial meat of phrases; always prate about being intensely practical but nevertheless spend their whole lives in following visions.
“When the average non-Labour patriot in Ireland who boasts of his practicality is brought in contact with the cold world and its problems he shrinks from the contact. Should his feet touch the solid earth he affects to despise it as a “mere material basis,” and strives to make the people believe that true patriotism needs no foundation to rest upon other than the brain storms of its poets, orators, journalists, and leaders.”
James Connolly, Workers Republic, January 1916, quoted in Conclusion to “The Failure of Irish Republicanism, 1907-1927”
While writing that last post I initially had it in my head that the law was called ‘Comme Positatus’ which, I was thinking, sounds like ‘Commie’, which is ironic for something quite important to American conservatives… but of course, it’s not, it’s that other thing…