#rationalism discourse

[statleragainstposers]

Love potions are unethical and I'm tired of pretending they're not.

[artist-issues]

Yesterday my German coworker yelled at me because she firmly believes no world religion can know anything, for sure, about God, so there’s no way to call anyone “right” or “wrong.”

And it took all my strength not to say, “so you’re saying I’m wrong”

because truth in love, truth in love

But seriously. What actually is the deal with the discourse that goes: “you can’t know anything for sure about God.”

“Wait, yes you can, like I know you well enough to know for sure that you’re from ____ Place—“

“—no no, no, that’s different. This is about God.”

“How’s it different?”

“You can’t say someone’s wrong about God.”

“…Well, can I say anything that’s wrong about you? Like, if I say, ‘_____ Person likes to kick puppies,’ can’t you say I’m wrong about you?”

“Yes but I’m not God.”

“Right, but you’re a real person who exists, so there are some things that I can know for sure about you—“

“THAT’S DIFFERENT”

No it’s not! It’s not ‘different.’ Quit acting like it’s different. Christians don’t believe in a set of ideals or the properties of rocks or some mystical vibe that nobody can be right or wrong about. We believe in a living and existing deity with an unchanging, eternally constant personality, and will, and DESIGN, outside of ourselves. So we can be wrong about Him. You can be wrong about Him. Everyone can be wrong—OR RIGHT—about Him, because He actually exists.

He’s not some imaginary friend who’s open to anybody’s interpretation. You get to claim an independent identity, character traits, and a personal history, but the God of the universe doesn’t? What is happening?

I’ll tell you what’s happening. You’re fine with me believing in an imaginary figment that’s only real to me, but as soon as He starts having an effect on the outer world, as if He actually exists and you have to start making some decisions based on that fact, THEN you’re not fine.

[thirdity]

“I don’t know,” “I refuse to judge”: as scandalous as an agrammatical sentence: doesn’t belong to the language of the discourse. Variations on the “I don’t know.” The obligation to “be interested” in everything that is imposed on you by the world: prohibition of noninterest, even if provisional.

Roland Barthes, The Neutral

[morlock-holmes]

I didn't say I think "dominant" culture values rational systems (and what dominant culture do you even mean), just that rationalism falls way short on its claims to do so. And I dunno, this is personal, but I can't agree that the subculture that told me "actually you should reframe your entire life around your scrupulosity" is much of an improvement, even if the bar is extremely low. Not when that subculture is full of all the kinds of social manipulation and cruelty it claims to be above.

I'm making very narrow claims that don't really have anything to do with what you're talking about here.

I have trouble communicating how much even high functioning autistic people have struggled with things that allistic people "just know", (a phrase I've heard again and again when interrogating allistic people).

Here's an example, which I believe I heard as a real life example although I can't recall where:

You have issues with the texture of clothing and there are only a few dress shirts you have that you can stand to wear. You have a sudden nose-bleed on one of your shirts and get blood all over the collar and down the front.

You launder the shirt but the blood stains have set in and are still very visible.

Should you wear that shirt to the office?

Most allistic people already know that the answer is, "almost certainly not."

An autistic person is likely to go through this process:

I have no idea if I should wear that shirt to the office or not, so let's figure it out.

Well, I have laundered the shirt so it is clean and sanitary, the stains are just visual blemishes.

All the social messages I've heard since I were a kid say that you can't judge a book by its cover and that looks don't matter, it's what's inside that counts.

And, I have a desk job, I wasn't hired to look a certain way, but rather to produce a certain kind of work, and wearing this comfortable shirt makes it easy for me to work without being distracted by uncomfortable clothes.

Therefore, logically, I can't imagine that anybody at the office will object to my wearing this shirt.

That last sentence is key, and I really want you to focus on it. You **aren't** thinking, "Well, maybe the button down drones at the office think this is a problem, but I know better than they do."

No, you aren't thinking that at all. You're thinking, "I put together the clues so I'm sure everyone at the office will feel the exact same way as I do"

And when they don't, it's a shock.

Now, I want you to further imagine that this is how you reason about other people and the world, but through some cosmic joke you've ended up at an employer where dressing right is incredibly important.

You'll get yelled at by your boss if you wear the wrong thing and your coworkers will turn on you. But there's no published dress code, you're just supposed to "just know" what an employee should wear.

But look at your reasoning above! You *don't* "just know" what the fashion is. Imagine you eventually say, to your boss and some coworkers, "I'm starting to get really stressed about not knowing what to wear to work, I really want to wear the right thing and be part of the team but I don't know how and I'm getting stressed out."

Immediately everybody turns on you. Your boss calls you into his office to ream you out. Your coworkers start a petition to fire you because you're obviously trying to undermine the valuable work culture that they have worked so hard to create. Concerned work friends pull you aside and go, "Jesus, are you crazy? We all stress out about what to wear but you never say it in public!"

Think about what that might feel like.

Now imagine you get fired and at your next job the boss is like, "Hey, the dress code is pretty important here, here's a list of what we expect. Sometimes some stuff is kind of on the edge so you won't know, but it's always fine to ask me if something is appropriate, and if you accidentally wear something that's on the wrong side that's fine, I'll let you know and we'll work on getting you some more appropriate stuff, but you won't get in trouble."

I want you to really think about what it would feel like, as an autistic person, to be at that second job after decades working at the first. To suddenly know you could ask questions or make mistakes at something that doesn't come easily to you after so much time in an environment where you're told that this stuff comes easily to everyone and people only *pretend* to be bad at it to get away with things.

What you're doing is coming in and going, "Well, that second job might be bad for other, unrelated reasons."

I will completely grant that, you're utterly correct. That second job might be terrible for a bunch of unrelated reasons.

But I'm never going back to that first job.

[ingravinoveritas]

"Can't wait to see you lose" "Goodnight from me and my favorite loser"

Move along. Nothing to see here...

[sad-endings-suck]

and if I said that lots of mizu/akemi shippers are actually mizu/fem self-insert and mizu/fem oc shippers then what?

[deancasforcutie]

literate SPN fans when the writers and Jensen and Misha have all supported destiel and cast/writers on The Winchesters have acknowledged the romantic destiel parallels that structure it and Rob and Rich say that's a couple+intentional writing and official social media mention their date nights but idk are we sure TPTB won't push them and all this dialogue back into the closet like four years ago/false (anti-)fandom narratives blaming creatives and erasing this censorship won't dominate again or still do because who said the beast was gone he was only just away

mishaithinkihaveptsd.gif

[noosferik]

porn discourse on this site is so frustrating, it inevitably revolves around vague bullshit social critique and platitudes. it presents no solution other than "x and y are bad, food for thought" and "no it's not". the existence of an industry is the problem, as financial and material pressures are an unacceptable modulation of consent. if this industry is done away with and there is a strong legal barrier to the commodification of sex, there is no systemic issue. all that'd be left would be, what, pornography made by willing exhibitionists which i wouldn't care about - as it's no longer a systemic issue. can anyone be level-headed about this.

[vestaldestroyer]

I really don't want to put "proship" in my desc because I don't want to invite stupid fandom discourse into my house, but also every time someone with "proship dni" in their desc or pinned follows me, a day is shaved off my lifespan.

I've said it a billion times and I'll say it again:

IF YOU THINK IT'S OKAY TO HARASS PEOPLE OVER LIKING FICTIONAL CONTENT YOU DEEM PROBLEMATIC, GET OUT.

[crownedwille]

I've come to the conclusion that loving young royals doesn't mean I can't be critical about it, maybe especially bc I love the show so much I have such strong feelings about it, good and bad and I can love parts of canon and agree with it and appreciate it but I don't have to love it all. I have accepted that it's okay if I don't accept the ending and I don't have to force myself to support it. It's okay to not agree with all of canon and it's okay to not side with all of the creators' intentions/views. Loving a show doesn't mean you have to take everything the writers say on face value and that's the only version that is allowed to exist. Canon isn't everything and fandom is about curating your own experience that makes you happy and not miserable. You don't have to dismiss canon in every aspect and ignore it entirely, that's certainly not what I want but there is a fine line between being canon respectful, allowing some parts to exist and sometimes, yes, you just have to say "fuck canon" and move on for your own sanity and wellbeing

[dreemurr-skelememer]

you're tagging utmv with 'undertale' hmmm, i get it.... It's that one person isn't it?

hilariously, ive been tagging all my work as undertale (both au and non-au) since like. 2016. and frankly im not changing my own system for whatever is going on LMAOOOOOOOOOOOO

[ingravinoveritas]

Taking a child with cancer and her story and actually making it about you/using it as an excuse to post a selfie is a level of self-absorbed and self-serving that I honestly did not know existed...

[violetviolentends]

I just wish we could start with the goddamn "you don't need to shave" stuff again. where did that go. if I get told to shave one more time because it "looks better", or told to at least apply foundation BY MY FELLOW QUEERS, I'll kill someone. can we also free the nipple while we're at it.

[the-most-humble-blog]

💬 The Bear Test: Why Certain People Are Not Ready to Lead Anything (Let Alone a Nation)

*Estimated Fallout: Politely devastating🐻

There’s a popular sentiment floating around these days — you’ve heard it, maybe even said it aloud:

“It’s time for a woman to lead.” “We’ve tried men — now it’s our turn.” “What this country needs is a nurturing, female presence in power.”

It’s said with hope. With passion. With conviction. And yet, in the next breath, you’ll often hear something like this:

“If I had to choose between being alone in the woods with a man or a bear... I’d choose the bear.”

Stop right there.

Let’s be extremely clear: this is a self-own masquerading as empowerment.

Because what you’ve just said — with a straight face — is that your decision-making process is so disconnected from reality that you would rather place your safety in the paws of a literal apex predator than in the presence of a fellow human being.

🧠 The Logic Test: Failed in Real-Time

Let’s say you’re walking in the woods. You round a corner and boom — surprise encounter.

Option A: A guy in a hoodie listening to music. Option B: A 600-pound grizzly with three cubs nearby.

You say, “I’ll take the bear.”

That’s not feminism. That’s not trauma. That’s a breakdown in threat assessment.

You know who can’t lead nations? People who think “life-threatening carnivore” > “guy who might ask for directions.”

👑 Leadership and Fear: A Necessary Balance

Here’s the thing: leadership requires clarity under stress. Not panic. Not projection. Not ideology.

When someone tells you they’re too uncomfortable being around members of their own species to function calmly, they are not qualified to lead others. Period.

Imagine interviewing a pilot and they say:

“I’m great under pressure… unless there are men in the cabin. Then I might pick a bear.”

Imagine a judge, a fire chief, a CEO, or a surgeon who says:

“I just feel safer around wild animals than people. Don’t ask me why.”

Would you still hand them control over your future?

🎭 “It’s Just a Joke” — Is It?

Sometimes, when this line gets challenged, the fallback is:

“It’s just a meme. It’s hyperbole.”

But that’s the thing about jokes: They usually have a psychological root. And this one reveals a growing cultural condition: the irrational elevation of discomfort into gospel.

You’re allowed to feel nervous. You’re allowed to process bad experiences. But when you uncritically turn fear into a virtue — and wrap that fear in political aspirations — you’ve built a movement on emotional instability.

📉 What This Really Says About Modern Culture

This is where we are:

Feelings are treated as facts

Experiences override evidence

And the loudest fear becomes the loudest moral compass

Which might work for personal journaling. It does not work for leading a nation.

When you would rather face a bear than a person, you are admitting:

You don’t trust your own ability to assess reality

You no longer differentiate between annoyance and threat

You think leadership is about being validated, not challenged

🤖 The Dehumanization Problem

Let’s talk implications.

If a man said, “I’d rather be with a bear than a woman,” he’d be called a misogynist. He’d be accused of dehumanizing women. Rightfully so.

But when the script is flipped? It’s framed as empowerment. Which reveals the real standard: Selective compassion, conditional empathy.

Leadership requires universality. You have to lead people you dislike. You have to protect people you don’t understand. You have to work with people who rub you the wrong way.

If your first response to discomfort is to invent a predator fantasy to justify your avoidance… you are not leading anyone. You’re self-soothing in public.

🧊 Leading Means Enduring Discomfort

To be a leader, you must:

Sit across from people you don’t trust and remain composed

Hear opinions you disagree with and not flinch

Be willing to make rational, hard decisions even when your emotions beg you not to

Saying you’d rather face a bear than a man because of vibes is not strength.

It’s cultural vertigo. It’s emotional distortion. And it’s the reason so many leadership movements fail before they begin.

📺 Let’s Play It Out: "President Bear-Test"

Imagine your dream candidate wins. The first woman president. Hope is high. Morale is high.

Then the nation hits a crisis. A real one. An international standoff. A volatile protest. An assassination attempt. A grid failure.

Do you want the person in charge to say:

“I’m scared, but I’ll assess the risk and act.”

Or:

“This reminds me of the time I was uncomfortable around a guy in line at Whole Foods. I need to sit down.”

This is not satire. This is the actual subtext behind the bear statement.

🎢 Emotional Thinking ≠ Leadership Material

To lead, you have to put emotion in the backseat. Not ignore it — but command it.

If your instinctive response to discomfort is an overcorrection so severe that it defies biology and common sense — you’ve lost your compass.

Leadership without logic is a rollercoaster with no brakes. And your fear becomes everyone else’s problem.

👁 Cultural Impact: What This Tells Future Generations

Let’s say a 13-year-old girl hears this messaging:

“It’s powerful to say you’re more afraid of men than predators.” “It’s cool to romanticize animals over people.” “Discomfort is reason enough to disengage.”

What does she learn?

That fear makes you wise

That trust is weakness

That avoiding others is leadership

What does she become?

A leader?

Or a person who runs the moment things get hard?

⚙️ Feminine Leadership Has Strength — When It’s Grounded

Let’s clarify something important: Strong, grounded, rational women exist. They lead families. Teams. Movements. Companies. Armies. Nations.

But they do so because they control their fear, not because they’re led by it.

The “bear” line isn’t about strength. It’s about emotional performance art. It’s not grounded in threat analysis — it’s grounded in social media algorithms that reward victimhood over competence.

You want to prove a woman can lead?

Lead. Don’t fantasize about bears. Don’t post trauma-core memes. Don’t alienate half your allies.

Just. Lead.

🧨 Final Thought: Wanting Leadership Is Not the Same as Being Ready For It

You can want leadership. You can demand representation. You can march and advocate.

But when your cultural baseline for safety is so warped that you’d choose claws over conversation, it means something deeper:

Your worldview is not fit to run a tribe. Your risk model is broken. Your rhetoric is theater. Your instincts don’t map to real-world survival.

And when the power finally gets handed to someone with this mindset?

The consequences are not symbolic. They’re real. They affect lives, infrastructure, families, resources, global stability.

Leadership is more than “representation.” It’s clarity, courage, and calm. And if you’re still picking the bear... it’s not your time.

⚖️ Free Speech Disclaimer:

This post is 100% protected under the U.S. Constitution. If that makes your HR team twitch, good. That’s called a functioning conscience. You don’t have to like it. You just have to remember: this is still America — for now...dumbass.

🔁 Reblog if you're done mistaking anxiety for wisdom. 💬 Comment if you're sick of emotional fragility being marketed as progress. 📩 DM if you're building resilience, not a following. 🔥 Share before someone picks the bear and gets the village flattened.

[veersnz]

CW : Contagion and discourse

Might take a little break from scrolling around tumblr for my mental health's sake, seeing the discourse going around about intentionally infecting people and overall contagion is really fucking me up mentally. To anyone who might think this is okay, respectfully go fuck yourself. I'm usually a very chill person but this shit drives me insane. For one, this is absolutely vile in terms of consent, you have no right to get people sick for your own pleasure. Moreover, you don't know if the person could get severely sick or hospitalized from your inconsiderate actions. As someone with several chronic illnesses that fights against isolating themselves in fear of getting sick, you're irresponsible and your actions are fucked up.

I love you all, but I gotta peace out for a bit

[teenagefeeling]

if i see that post with a bunch of tags being like "these are the correct opinions on tumblr discourse" and the first one is "men aren't animals" ONE MORE FUCKING TIME im going to murder someone i swear to god