#god doesn't exist

[critical-skeptic]

Why I Call Out Idiots, Ridicule Them, and Still Put in the Intellectual Effort

Let’s get one thing clear right out of the gate: engaging with the intellectually bankrupt isn't about convincing them. It’s not about changing the mind of the conspiracy nut, the QMAGA cultist, the religious zealot, or the Dunning-Kruger poster child who thinks they know more than any expert because they once watched a YouTube video. Most of these people are beyond reasoning. They've willingly turned off the critical thinking switch in their heads and committed to their insulated worldview. Trying to talk them out of it is like trying to teach a fish how to ride a bike—it’s pointless, exhausting, and ultimately a waste of time.

But here's the thing: I’m not talking to them. When I call out their bullshit, ridicule their arguments, and put the intellectual or academic effort into tearing down their fallacies, it's not for their benefit. They’re lost causes. It’s for the one person in the crowd—the bystander, the lurker, the person who hasn’t yet fully bought into the echo chamber of ignorance—who might be open to listening. That person? They’re worth the effort.

There's a popular conception that if you engage with these kinds of people, you should do so respectfully, patiently, and with empathy. Frankly, that’s nonsense. These ideologues don’t deserve respect because they have no respect for truth. They don't deserve empathy because their entire shtick is designed to perpetuate ignorance, division, and sometimes outright harm. When someone uses their platform to spread blatant lies or dangerous fallacies, they should be called out—and if it takes ridicule to do that, so be it.

Critics might say, "But you're not going to convince them if you're dismissive or rude." Guess what? I don’t give a damn. I’m not interested in convincing someone who thinks the Earth is flat, that vaccines are mind control devices, or that an invisible deity is pulling the strings of the universe. What I care about is the other people watching, the ones who are still on the fence. The ones who might be swayed if they see someone actually pushing back against the tide of misinformation. If one person out of a hundred sees my argument and it plants a seed of doubt in their mind about the nonsense they're being fed, that’s worth it.

This is about reaching them—the thinkers, the skeptics, the people who might not even realize they’re hungry for real information. Maybe they’ve been floating around in the middle, too timid or unsure to push back themselves, too lost in the noise to seek out better sources. When they see someone pushing back—whether with logic, mockery, or cold, hard facts—it might just give them the encouragement they need to look deeper.

We live in a time when people are retreating into ideological bubbles, only talking to people who agree with them. That’s dangerous. It allows bad ideas to fester, unchecked, and gives the impression that everyone is either an extremist or a coward. I'm not interested in talking only to my bubble. I want to break through the walls and let people outside see that there’s another way to think. That’s why I engage. That's why I argue. And when necessary, that's why I ridicule.

The problem with staying silent or pretending these people can be reasoned with is that it normalizes their nonsense. It gives the impression that their ideas are just one side of a "legitimate debate." Newsflash: they're not. When you engage with a creationist, you're not debating science versus religion. You're calling out blatant ignorance masquerading as intellect. When you respond to a QMAGA believer who claims Trump was sent by God, you’re not engaging in a political conversation. You’re confronting a cultist mindset. And when you take on a conspiracy theorist who thinks 5G is part of a global mind-control plot, you’re not discussing telecommunications technology; you're pointing out someone’s dangerous disconnection from reality.

So, why do I still bother? Because it matters. Even if 99 out of 100 people are unreachable, there’s always the chance that the one who’s left will see the truth. And that’s worth everything. We all have a responsibility not to just talk to our perceptive bubbles, but to provide others with the tools and information they need to see things for themselves. You don’t have to force anyone; you just have to be there to plant the seed.

The world doesn’t change because a few idiots get smarter—it changes when a silent majority sees that the idiots can and should be called out. When rational people stop being silent and start pushing back, others take notice. And maybe, just maybe, that leads to real change.

This is the goal—what should be everyone’s goal. Not to convince every lost cause, but to ensure that the people on the fence have a clear view of both sides. And to make damn sure they know which side is built on reason, evidence, and truth.

If calling out the bullshitters and ridiculing the dogmatic helps accomplish that, then I’ll gladly do it every day.

[sorcerysage]

The horrifying truth of God told by the devil the devil told me that God doesn't exist because he is not real

[egophiliac]

buckle up lads we're going BACK INTO THE BOOK

[navyinks]

Olympians postcards w/ brush markers

Artemis > Apollo > Aphrodite > Hephaestus > Hermes > Dionysus > Ares > Athena

[sforzesco]

2025's ides of march illustration!

I've been doing one a year since the 2022 presidential election*, so. you know! keeping up with the thematic tradition. sometimes politicians compare themselves to caesar crossing the rubicon and you just gotta. process that. do an annual re read of a bunch of different literature that use the ides as their stage. go through commentary on dante's divine comedy. watch a production of julius caesar. for unrelated reasons, ofc.

(*other countries besides america have elections)

it's also funny how people will debate whether or not the optimates/conspirators/whatever were ungrateful assholes in my inbox whenever I post one of these, like the ides of march hasn't been a well established narrative that people have been using to explore other stuff for centuries. take it to an academic conference! we have empire and autocracy and absolutely batshit press conferences to discuss!!

and as always, some reading material! for fun and whimsy. for more on brutus as an established allegorical figure:

The Brutus Revival: Parricide and Tyrannicide During The Renaissance, Mafredi Piccolomini

and on roman conspiracies narratives

Conspiracy Narratives in Roman History, V.E. Pagan

[taz-134340]

we'll we'll we'll..

[the-barefoot-hatter]

pediatricians are hard to find.

you aren't broken and other important things a triangle needs to hear

[mamawasatesttube]

what WERE tim and kon doing in that closet together that made kon have to get dressed afterwards anyway? wrong answers only. i'll start i think they were playing two person strip poker but tim cheated like a motherfucker. actually wait that doesn't make this sound any less gay. um. hold on. there's gotta be something. um

[chrryb1rd]

an iceman POV of the "she's lost that loving feeling" scene is a need not a want

[mobius-m-mobius]

- H OF H PLAYBOOK, anne carson (insp/Loki version)

[deservedgrace]

I think one of the more insidious beliefs I had to deconstruct imo is that "negative" emotions, especially anger, are sinful/bad. It's not beneficial to believe any emotions are inherently evil and need to be avoided at all costs, but anger specifically gives information about mistreatment, injustice, boundaries being crossed, disrespect, etc. People that are dissociated from their anger are that much easier to control. It's much easier to get away with harming people that struggle to identify when they're being harmed, and who can easily be called "sinful" when they do identify it.

[bitchthefuck1]

I love how the conversation between Harmony and Helena shows the tension that Helena becoming severed creates in the power dynamics, because even as a temporary PR stunt under a different name to clearly delineate them, Helly's existence is still a huge crack in the Eagan mythology. Cobell, Milchick, and Graner could be drinking the kool-aid by the bucketful, but watching a descendant of Kier allow themselves to be severed and then being placed in a position of authority over them would still have a massive subconscious impact on the way they view Helena, and by extension their perception of the Eagan's as a whole. It's a direct threat to their illusion of divinity, and you can really feel how that colors their interactions.

[literally-forever]

you ever think about how part of Charles feeling a lot better by the end of the series is because he finally could do something about something? he went and got Edwin from hell. HE did that. and he bloody well succeeded

[urproblematicfav-arsonk]

So pretending Viv didn't retcon her own fucking lore drop on twitter by being like "omg!! If it wasn't obvioussssss, he was lying. Silly guy. Isn't the sin of WRATH such a egoistical, self absorbed PRIDEFUL guy"—

I'm very into this idea that Satan, and the Imps and all the Hellborn are the indigenous people of Hell.

Which would mean, that Lucifer got banished to a foreign land, immediately claimed ownership of it, allowed/told his wife to manipulate everyone with her singing, and then proceeded to flood Hell with human Sinner's that he also made legally above all the Hellborn. And then got...bored?? And quit actively being king to go make ducks and emotionally abuse his daughter.

Like, holy shit is Lucifer being a metaphor for white colonialism fucking INSANE. The running assumption (and Viv's bullshit on twitter) has been that Lucifer and the other Sin's were together as a group. That the circus theme, and the rings, and the Goetia was just the world they built. But, if Satan and the Sin's were just the indigenous people who lived there, that sure as fuck makes the circus theme more creepy?

Circuses have historically been horrifying displays of human cruelty. Human trafficking, the buying and selling of people with dwarfism as toys or pets, physical torture and extreme conditions, racisim, rape, animal abuse, just like...bad stuff. There were probably some circuses that were fine, but the vast majority of the time it wasn't done humanely or with any dignity to the people performing.

Lucifer, showed up and just like, forced the Sin's into a Circus they didn't want to be apart of? The Circus isn't a thing anymore, because Lucifer isn't as into it, and all of the Sin's seem perfectly fine not doing it anymore.

Thing is, who the fuck was this Circus for?

The only thing I can think of is Lucifer wanting to feel in control again after being banished, and trying to establish the Sinner's as the deserving and dominate "race".

He would've forced Queen B to humiliate and abuse her hellhounds to do...tricks and dances on balls or whatever the fuck, to show how lowly and animalistic they are. Hellhounds aren't like Sinner's. Sinner's are just people with animal traits, they're REAL PEOPLE unlike these dogs.

He would've forced Ozzie to make his Hellborn and Imps to do dangerous and unnecessary acts. The big difference between Hellborn and Sinner's, is that the Hellborn can actually die. So when the Sinner's see a Imp fall from a trapeze act, or end up set on fire and hurt, they'll see that they're inherently better because they aren't that frail. And again, historically circuses had a lot of human trafficking, sex, labor or otherwise. Ozzie runs the sex industry, and I wouldn't be surprised if there was overlap there in the start.

Mamm and Levi seem to be on the infrastructure side, building and maintaining the society and rings everyone lives on. We KNOW that Imps and Hellborn are underprivileged and lack resources. Hellhounds are forced into shelters where they're thrown out the second the little social funding they have runs out. Imps are basically constantly struggling, and never seem to have stable lives. I wouldn't be surprised if most of the support and care that the Hellborn need are being used to "fix" the "overpopulation" issue that Lucifer caused.

And Satan. Holy shit is forcing Satan, the original king to Hell, and the creator of the main indigenous peoples of Hell, to be the fucking "Law" absolutely horrifying. The fact that Satan is in such a high position of power(supposedly) and he's here, making an "example" of a Imp to get the bureaucracy off his ass and move on with his life. Well, if the god of Imps says that they're all disgusting rapists who are after the poor, innocent white Goetia then that must be true!!!! HORRIFYING. WHAT THE FUCK.

Lucifer forced the original gods of Hell to debase, and humiliate their peoples for the entertainment of his Sinner's, and then got fucking bored and left the circus to hide away in his castle. No wonder Ozzie is a consent freak and B is so concerned about people self harming.

There's a world, where Hazbin Hotel actually takes RISKS, and tries to do something interesting. But Viv backtracks every time. And also would never allow her villian characters to be...ya know....villainous. But Luci can't do more then be kinda a little abusive to his daughter but only in a sad way, otherwise he's not a gooodddd guyyyyyy nooooooo.

Anyway, I'm very attached to this indigenous Satan au. Fuck Lucifer, give the Imps their fucking land back you colonizing bitch, and let Satan be the king of Pride again. And stop forcing them to fucking celebrate your dad's son by claiming it's actually just about celebrating youuuu and your sinnn. Shut the fuck up you goddamn weirdo.

[mushyfart]

megan halsey they could never make me hate you

[yikesy]

I'm aware of how random this sounds

But because rrverse Apollo and rrverse Hermes have a tense and distant relationship, I was thinking about how differently they interact with their kids, and my thoughts spiralled until I thought of Luke.

I feel like an Apollo and Luke interaction would be so interesting. Luke probably wouldn't like him due how May got all messed up from trying to be his Oracle, but I feel like Apollo would be a kind uncle BECAUSE he knows what Luke's fate is (and probably disapproves about how Hermes treated the whole thing).

Like remember when Apollo once said that he would of adopted Frank if he could? I would like to think he would of wanted to adopt Luke too.

Your thoughts?

oh luke DOES NOT have a good impression of apollo. apart from the may thing let's not forget the event that kinda radicalized him was HALCYON GREEN. it's very interesting actually because he sees hermes as uncaring and neglectful but he sees apollo as actively malicious

so he thinks hermes is The Worst bc of his inaction but then comes apollo who he perceives as too involved, in the bad way (he's not, luke who by pure coincidence witnessed two apollo related atrocities before sixteen is an outlier and shouldn't be counted) Lots of wires crossed

but sadly I think bc of that his reaction to apollo would be very,, measured?? like, he thinks he's evil!! apollo would come down to see what's the deal with this kid everyone's making such a fuss about and luke would be very polite and amiable and and apollo would get hermes vibes™™ that he's just acting like that to hide he's scared and uncomfortable and then apollo would leave bc he doesn't want to keep subjecting him to that by forcing his presence. but he wouldn't know just How Much he was lying then and the depth of his Issues

but if they somehow got into a situation where luke gives up any attempt at preservation and GOES OFF at apollo (which he would) apollo would, well he would respond very calmly and pointedly take responsibility for everything which would confuse THE FUCK out of luke

and then he would go directly to hermes and tell him he needs to get down here now this shit is serious and hermes would be like "you know I can't why are you making it more painful than it already is" and apollo would be like "you're being an extremist and oddly stubborn about this" and they would go at it for a looong time.

apollo's opinion on luke's fate is that hermes may not be able to control or change it but what hermes can control is his own relationship with luke and the way he's hurting him right now, that if tragedy is going to happen anyway and you love the one it's heading to, then it's your duty to balance the scales and steal moments from between the lines of prophecy, so that happiness WAS there, even if it didn't change anything. that hermes is not only withdrawing his love but causing more misery to an already doomed person... he cannot stand for it

in the end apollo would end up routinely dragging hermes to see luke bc hermes does want to but he won't admit anything to apollo and he'd be sooo awkward and pathetic with luke and luke would stare at him with disdain and judgement. in the end apollo ends up acting like a kind of particularly forceful family therapist

so lmao from luke's perspective it would be like "this guy I don't like and I don't understand, for an unfathomable reason, took my dad being absent as a personal offense and now keeps dragging him here like some kind of cat who keeps bringing dead mouse and keeps dropping by to give me weekly updates and lessons on godly psychology and politics"