Tag Archive: hypocrisy

So, I found this in the news: The Iranian Women’s Soccer team has been banned from competing in the Olympics for failing to adhere to the dress code set down by FIFA, the Fédération Internationale de Football Association. Or, for us Yanks, the International Federation of Association Football.

Since nobody clicks links on blogs, here’s a quick sum-up: The Iranian Women’s team is required by Iranian law to be covered from hair/neck down to the feet “according to the state’s interpretation of Shiite Islamic tenets,” according to the Washington Post. FIFA has banned anything that goes around the player’s neck (including neck warmers) from being worn during games for safety reasons that I REALLY hope I don’t have to explain to you. (However, in case I do, here you are: Getting yanked backwards by the neck is BAD. If done hard enough, your neck could break. What does that result in? Paralysis or death. these are the exact same reasons you weren’t allowed to wear necklaces in PE as a kid.)

The Iranian women’s team re-designed headscarves for themselves that fit tightly around the head and neck, reducing the chance of them getting caught during a game. However, they still go AROUND the neck. Thus, FIFA said “Sorry, but it’s against regulations. It’s a safety hazard. You can’t play.” Seems simple enough, eh?

Well, apparently not. People are ALL up in arms that it’s religious discrimination, or discrimination against Iranians, that it’s a stupid rule to impose Western ways upon players, etc. No, people, it’s not. It’s safety. NO ONE can wear anything around their neck. Period. It doesn’t matter what religion you are, what country you’re from, or what sex you are, it’s a safety issue, and FIFA wants all the players to not be injured unnecessarily during games. What we have here is a clear case of “BUT I’M SPECIAL,” which crops up all too often in this world of ours.

Religion is not a trump card to any rule, or something to receive special treatment over, people. And while I’m at it, neither is being gay, a minority, having tits, having a disability, or having blonde hair. This is especially true in this case– this is a safety issue. This is not a “this isn’t allowed because I say so” issue.

“But it isn’t fair!”

No, in this case it is. Being fair is applying the same rule to everyone, no matter what, without bias or favoritism. And while we’re on the subject of what’s fair and what isn’t, I’m going to make myself grievously unpopular. Ready?

Affirmative action is not fair. It is bullshit. It is bullshit, hypocrisy, and idiocy all rolled into one.

“But without it, people who might otherwise not be hired because of prejudice wouldn’t be hired!”

You know what? If it’s a private business, that’s their priority. If they only want to hired big breasted Caucasian women with green eyes and red hair, they can do that. If they want to have a penis size requirement, fine. I really don’t give a fuck. If you don’t want to hire me because I’m a woman, that’s fine. I don’t want to work for you anyway. If someone does not want you there, they will find a way to make your life hell, no matter how many laws the government tries to put in place to prevent it. They can force you to quit by cutting your hours, by making your job unnecessarily difficult, you name it. If you can’t somehow prove they did it, they’ll get away with it. That may not be fair, but that’s the way things are. The world is not fair. You know what else isn’t fair?

Expecting to be hired because of your chromosomes instead of your qualifications.

It’s not fair when a straight man is hired simply because he’s straight, and it’s not fair when a gay man is hired simply because he’s gay. In my tiny ideal world, we would all be resumes with no names, just numbers, when we go into the job pool. Then the employers would only see what we’d done, what we could do, and how well we were qualified. We wouldn’t be kicked out of the interviewing process because we have a nose ring, and we wouldn’t be kept in the process because we fit some “requirement” for a percentage of staff that has to have brown hair, regardless if they are qualified or not. Of course, this doesn’t take care of the problem of discrimination once you’re hired, but at least it takes the bullshit out of the hiring process that is supposedly to make things “fair” when it actually just rigs it against certain people, which is supposedly what it was going to fix. Demanding equal treatment and then turning around and demanding special treatment because of some slight against you, real or imagined, is hypocrisy.

It seems what fairness actually is has been skewed in the present society, very possibly due to the attitude I discovered in my “Don’t Yell at Me, I’m Organizationally Disabled” post. Everyone else should be expected to be able to meet the expectations or shut up, but they should be given special pardon from such rigorous standards because they’re ADD when their Playstation is too close by. That sort of thing. It comes from knowing your weaknesses and assuming that no one else has any, or, conversely, knowing your strengths and assuming everyone else is just lazy and/or weak. It also comes from assuming the most evil motivation possible for every single slight against you and/or something you support. That’s how suddenly this ruling by FIFA has nothing to do with safety, it’s all about hating on Islam. It doesn’t matter why the ruling was actually made, the worst way it could be construed is that it was put into place to discriminate against anyone wearing a headscarf. Or a scarf. Or a necklace. Or anything that goes around the neck. It’s all because the people in charge are mean, hateful people that make arbitrary rules. That whole safety thing? Psh. Injuries never happen in sports! They made that up!


Perhaps I’m just a horrible, terrible person that is rationalizing hate. Those that trip across this blog that vehemently oppose the Iranian women’s team being disqualified and support affirmative action may very well think so. Or on the other side, perhaps I’m being far too idealistic, and evil, evil shadows are lurking everywhere waiting to fuck me over for arbitrary reasons, so I should always assume the worst and protect myself accordingly. On one side I have people who think they’re entitled to something because they’re different, and on the other people who think they’re being fucked over because they’re different.

They can have fun fighting over which philosophy is correct. When so much of the world is honestly random chance, there’s not much point, but whatever gets you to sleep at night. However, whatever you do, don’t take your entitlement or paranoia and call catering to either being “fair.”

STOP THE PRESSES. I have figured out why the fuck one of my housemates is so annoying. Wait for iiiiiit…


Now, you can bitch all you like “hurr durr, you shouldn’t talk behind people’s backs, it’s not nice!” but I know you do it anyway. It’s HEALTHY, people. Would it be better to just bottle all that negativity up and end up going into a sneaky hate spiral? No. No one should be screamed at over something as stupid as “YOU LEFT A CRUMB ON THE COUNTER,” or “YOU LEFT THE SPONGE IN THE SINK” when really what you’re so mad about is the fact that the curtains are gone, the paint’s peeling, the pot on the stove is boiling over and your apartment is NOT on fire. It’s not the crumb or sponge. It’s a number of things. But if you wig the fuck out because you’ve been “repressing everything in a deep dark twisted place until you snap and kill them” (thank you Christina) then they’ll just think you’re bonkers or a jackass that overreacts to insignificant stimuli. (And then most likely get worse…)

I found out about the flaws in this girl’s perception of reality thusly: She was standing there and bitching to me about our other housemate and then said “I feel bad for bitching about him now when I’m going to ask him to do something with me tonight.”

“Why?” I said. “Everyone complains about everyone. I’m sure you and he bitch about me, so why is it wrong to bitch about him? Repressing it does no one any good.”

This quickly launched into her looking acutely uncomfortable as soon as she realized that implicit in that statement meant I bitched about HER. Apparently, she could not wrap her little head around that one. She also quickly became cranky. No matter.

Here’s what’s so baffling to me: How can this be the case? Is this a larger trend? Am I to believe the media when they say my generation is a bunch of fucking entitled assholes that think they can do no wrong and offend no one? In response to this incident and a few others, I would say yes. That baffles the shit out of me.

Maybe it’s just the fact that I had PLENTY of opportunities to realize I’m a failure in some aspects of life, but I have trouble seeing how anyone can get to the age of 20 and honestly believe that no one would ever complain about them. That means to me they believe that no one should have any reason to be annoyed at anything they are doing. Suddenly, so much of her thoughtless behavior is explained– it is not that she thinks of no one else, it is that she hasn’t the idea in her head that she should think of anyone else, because in her world, no one should be bothered by anything she does! Ergo, she does not need to consider anyone else when she does something, because that implies that something she is doing might annoy or inconvenience someone.

My question to you all: How the fuck can anyone be this lost in self deception?

For her delusion up there to be true, she would have to live in a vacuum and have no one around to annoy. Something you do is going to irritate someone if you live with them long enough, even if it is something that is useful or positive. For example: I compulsively clean. And by clean I mean CLEAN. I mean, I will spend fifteen minutes cleaning spots off the mirror. An hour cleaning the shower. If that plate in the sink won’t come clean for anyone else, by Bahamut it will fucking come clean for me. Due to these fits of perfectionist mania I have, I have an insane standard of what clean is. Therefore, you can guess how well it works when someone else tries to clean for me as a nice surprise.

Now, think about this. Cleaning has to be done, so it’s good that I do it, yes? Yes. But it is annoying to clean something and have someone come right behind you and go “The spots, the SPOTS, they remain! OUT DAMN SPOT! OUT!” and start scrubbing furiously at whatever you just cleaned. It’s made even more annoying when they actually do quote Macbeth at you. Which I do. You may all now marvel at the fact I have not been shot yet, and please send your condolences to @DrHowl on twitter.

Okay, so, we’ve just established that something that can be positive can be quickly made annoying as fuck. You all know from life experience that more negative things can be annoying as fuck. I know for a fact she knows what it is to have someone do annoying things because she was complaining about what annoyed her about our other housemate. So how can she honestly believe that no one would complain about her, and then become upset when she realizes someone could and probably does? All while *she* is complaining about someone else?!

I have a theory. It has to do with the great evil of being politically correct. In being politically correct, one is to use euphemisms or otherwise hide whatever one actually means. If someone wraps up what they want to say in enough cotton candy, it won’t be so bad that they’re calling you a disgusting freak, apparently. Apparently it is much better to call you “a controversial individual of unique nature that is often in social conflict with peer behavior.” Yeah, because all of that doesn’t mean the same damned thing. Another great example of this type of lying can be found on resumes under job titles and duties. Suddenly a person that has a job cleaning pig styes is a “Animal Cleanliness Controller” and shoveling poo is “Waste management.” The point is, it is all LYING. If you have to conceal what you actually mean in any capacity, it is a type of deception. Worse, it is expected by society as the norm now.

People use this deception as a security blanket. They can say the most hateful things and pretend it’s not hateful. Suddenly it’s not “We don’t hire fags” it’s “we don’t hire anyone that makes risky lifestyle choices to ensure we have funding to help our employees when they are in need. Our apologies.” If you can take something that hateful and make it into something that is on the surface that benign, that even makes some logical sense (“Oh, well, they shouldn’t be extending health insurance to someone that is jumping off bridges or something for a hobby, it’d be expensive if they had to pay for them being hurt!” one might think, hearing that out of context and *not* directly after someone asks about your living arrangements and you have said “I live with my partner.”) then what limit is there to what you can do? What limit is there to what you can suddenly make inoffensive? Suddenly it is not that you leave your clothes lying all over the floor because you’re a lazy asshole, it is that your “creative mind has difficulty grasping inorganic systems of organization.” Oh, so it’s not your fault that you just take off your clothes and throw them on the floor, suddenly it’s because you have an organizational disability. Right.

I understand the PC bullshit that is supposed to be polite because HEY, chances are if you’ve put on some weight since high school (like everyone has) you know it. You don’t need someone coming up and going “Wow, you got fat.” No. You don’t comment on the fact their ass has grown by three sizes, you say “Oh, your hair looks lovely!” That implies some forethought about the other person’s feelings. You recognize that they probably know they’re bigger than they used to be. No one needs to tell them. It’s a form of deception in the fact you filtered what you said, but it is not the PC malarkey I listed above. If it was, what would have been said instead was “I see you don’t have to shop in the mediums anymore! You always used to complain everything was picked over. I bet you have your choice of anything you want, now! Awesome.”

Point is, people have tricked themselves into honestly believing that if they’re not outright calling someone a lard-ass or outright breaking your dishes purposely they’re not being offensive and no one has anything they can complain about. They’re always considerate– except when someone else should be considerate of their inability to grasp what a hamper is. It’s all about the diffusion of blame onto other people for not accepting your short comings. YOU can’t help what’s wrong with you– but everyone else just needs to learn to stop being so lazy and pick up their clothes. And the very idea that someone would complain about what you can’t change– my god. They’re such horrible people! You’re a victim, you’re coping with your organizational learning disability as best you can!

All this taken into consideration, I suppose it shouldn’t surprise me that my roommate cannot grasp why anyone would dislike her or complain about her. After all, I’m just a meanie-face for implying that she’s somehow not perfect just how she is. I really should just learn to accept the fact she is, in fact, just exceptionally gifted at alternative means of anger channeling and conflict management that can hold multiple differing opinions at the same time. It’s everyone else that’s a sulking, passive aggressive hypocrite.

Silly me.


Small Note: The post published just prior to this has been moved to private visibility. It only provoked silence, which is really not what I’d like to have here. Apologies to anyone that wanted it kept up. I just didn’t see the point.

WARNING: This post is going to piss people off. No, seriously. It deals heavily with religion. If that bothers you, run now. Don’t bother flaming me, getting upset. We’re not going to agree. I don’t expect you to agree with me, nor should you expect me to agree with you. Don’t waste your time. Thanks.


I’m fed up. Look, I know I’ve been going post happy lately, but goddamn if this doesn’t piss me off.

Here’s the back story: A building containing an adult novelty store burned down in my town. No one was hurt, and it looks like the cause was accidental. The firemen were awesome in responding, all that. That’s all great. However, I’m about ready to drop kick me some holier than thou twats that live in my town.

An example of this foolishness, a letter to my local paper. I’m replacing the town name with Townsville, because I don’t want you people to know where I live and hunt me down:

“Hey, why didn’t the [newspaper] just call it what it was, a pornography store?

Why do you sanitize this type of business? Why do you make it sound so nice and clean, so polite and quaint for the good folks of Townsville?

This business was a blight and an embarrassment for the area, and sadly, one that exploits and dehumanizes people. Pornography is proved statistically to be a contributing factor for criminal behaviors such as rape and sexual assault. It makes women “things” and not real human people. It also makes other people very rich and powerful at their expense.

If this fire had struck another type of business, you wouldn’t be afraid to call it a liquor store, or a food store, or a hardware store. So why not call it what it really was: a pornography store? Everyone talking about the fire story in Townsville spoke of the porn store that burned up, not the cute sounding “adult novelty store.””

People have been wailing on the owner of this store, calling it a “blight” on the city, making jokes about melting blow up dolls, and generally being the most disrespectful pricks you’ll ever come across. If this was a coffee shop that had burned down, we’d hear people “praying for those that lost their livelihood.” Because it’s a store that sold some very nice adult toys and videos, apparently, we should have thrown the employees and owners into the blaze to be rid of their “kind.”

No, I’m not making that up. In the comments section of one of the articles on this, someone said that anyone that would work at a sex shop is “disgusting.” Really? Really now? Why?

***AUTHOR’S NOTE: I apologize now to you good, SANE Christians. You guys that practice kindness and tolerance and know what a vibrator is and don’t begrudge others getting off with one, or hell, even use one yourself. I KNOW you exist. None of this tirade applies to you. I’m not for religion, but clearly you guys get the faith thing and it WORKS for you. Run with it. More power to you. Just skip the rest of this post. Seriously. It’s just going to piss you off. *****

Oh, but I’m being stupid again. It’s all because I wasn’t born and raised to believe that I’m going to burn in hell if I get enjoyment from sex. THAT’S why I’m such a heathen that I don’t believe this store is evil. So silly of me.

Now, this has been a vexation of mine for a long time, this demonization of sex we have in this country. It can be traced back to those fun-loving Puritans that first came to this country, methinks. You know, those same people that thought it was a sin to dance, have music, use your imagination (note: that last one was stolen from my Shakespeare professor, and I haven’t found documentation of that one just yet, but damnit, I will), and in the words of House, thought drama and plays were “the way the devil gets inside you (points if you get that reference and name the episode).” They were laughed out of England for their bitching about theatre, thus they came here to steal other people’s land and live out their miserable, tuneless, sexless lives.

Of course, they’re not all to blame. The idea that sex = evil is rather prominent in most branches of Christianity. The majority of the U.S. is Christian. Thus, the majority of America seems to have this belief, and the type of bullshit that is contained in the letter above happens.

My question is: Why? Why, exactly, is it that Christians fear sex so much at every single point in their lives? The antiquated insanity of “no sex before marriage” is a special type of lunacy to discuss another time, but what about just in general? I’ve been trying to come up with something for years, and all I can come up with is that the Church really, really hates anything that causes pleasure.

Here’s my theory on religion: It was created to control the masses when just threatening to beat your ass for killing someone didn’t cut it anymore. They needed some bigger, better punishment. Punishment that lasted a really, REALLY long time. All you have to do is create a mystical figure to do the punishing and BOOM. You can get people to stand in line because if they don’t, powers far more mighty than mere man shall smite them!

See, all that, I get. I really do. Human groups need order, and that order needs to be kept by having rules that are enforced. If people don’t fear consequences of breaking rules, everything goes to hell. I GET that. It keeps the rapin’, murderin’, and cuttin’ on yer own face down. More bonus points if you get THAT reference.

But why the hell police consenting sex?! Why?! What the hell do they get out of it? You cannot tell me that Adam and Eve never got it on. According to Christian mythology, they HAD to. Where’d all these Christians come from, otherwise?! Now, we can run with the idea that before the fall they never did. Sure. But why do we need to think that? Why is lust, what is necessary to create life, a deadly sin?

All I’ve got is that it makes people hate themselves, and therefore become obsessed with what they can do to somehow “fix” whatever it is they are talked into believing is wrong with them. And HEY! You know who knows how to fix it? All those nice people in that big pointy building. Who told you it was wrong in the first place. That’s why you police carnal desire, unavoidable emotions and impulses, because if you make them hate themselves for what they cannot control, blame themselves for what they naturally are, and then claim that only you have the keys to fixing it all, they’ll run to you for all the answers. You own them. They will do whatever you tell them to make their “dirty” and “disgraceful” selves better. Yeah. You know who else does this type of brainwashing? Abusers. Check this out:

As defined by the United States Department of Justice:

Emotional Abuse: Undermining an individual’s sense of self-worth and/or self-esteem. This may include, but is not limited to constant criticism, diminishing one’s abilities, name-calling, or damaging one’s relationship with his or her children.

Psychological Abuse: Causing fear by intimidation; threatening physical harm to self, partner, children, or partner’s family or friends; destruction of pets and property; and forcing isolation from family, friends, or school and/or work.


Now, those are the definitions for those as they pertain to domestic violence, but it sounds eerily like what the church does: It tells you over and over again you’re worthless/damaged, intimidates you with threats of a place of torture especially if you question them or disagree with them (silly heretics)… you get the idea.

Okay, now all you people about to flame me and yell “CHURCH ISN’T LIKE THAT! THEY DO GOOD!” tell me this: If an abusive spouse works for a charity and feeds the poor, should we not punish them for beating their spouse to death? Can any amount of good deeds really wipe away the stain of convincing people they are worthless? Defective? Damaged?

You know, I started this post to rail into people that hated sex for no reason other than they were told it was bad. In wandering down the road of why anyone would possibly believe that madness, I’ve found why it is the church pisses me off so much.

What all of that rant was supposed illustrate is how absurd the fear and hatred of sex is that makes people call this legitimate business a “blight” and laugh at the fact that people lost their livelihood and jobs.

I’ll get into the hating on porn another day. What pisses me off is that this business is being mocked and jeered at, kicked, and it’s employees and patrons pissed on because in this damned society, sex is evil.

And it’s all because an abusive entity bent on controlling minds told people so, and they believed them.

Remember, kids: Religions are just cults with more members. And better public relations.


Here is a much smarter person than I disputing the idea that the church, most specifically, the Catholic Church, is a force of good in the world. I give you, the glorious Stephen Fry. This man raises many of the points I do here, but far more eloquently than a verbal klutz like myself could ever hope to do. If you don’t listen to me, listen to him.

Part 1 of 2: Stephen Fry

%d bloggers like this: