Grail

Thank you!

Even if you look at a neo-nazi group like the Proud Boys, the name is actually ironic. Their leader based the name on the Aladdin song Proud Of Your Boy, which he hates. McInnes thinks that Aladdin having emotions of pride and shame related to his role as a mother's son is fake and bad. "Real men" don't feel emotions about their identities or relationships. Nazis think the idea of a man feeling proud of who he is is a joke, worth mocking. The conservative man is expected to repress questions like "who am I" and "am I a good person". Those sorts of questions are for women and lefty snowflakes .

The conservative man only has a cultural identity (race, nationality, religion, occupation, sex), no personal identity. Gender identity and sexuality, being defined by the individual, are not acceptable identities for a conservative to have. Vegan and religious convert also fall under the category of chosen identity and are also hated or ignored. When you call a conservative cisgender, you are putting a choice in their hands. You're saying "you get to choose your gender identity and here is the name of your choice. Your choice is an important part of who you are". That's terrifying. That's responsibility. That's freedom. That's prompting the conservative to ask "who am I", and that question is a taboo. Elon Musk doesn't want to be cisgender because he doesn't want to be responsible for who he is. He wants society to choose for him. He wants male to be the only option for him. Elon Musk only wants to be proud of what's happened to him, he doesn't know how to be proud of who he is and he doesn't like being asked to feel that way. And to be fair, if you got Elon Musk to seriously ask "am I a good person", he'd realise the answer is no and panic. He's made choices that mean he can never actually be proud of himself except in a shallow, superficial way. Most conservatives have made those kinds of choices. Continuing to live in a world without pride means they don't have to face the monumental task of reclaiming theirs.

I feel the need to remind you that many members of the LGBT+ community have rebuked all preferred pronouns. Take for example Lily Cade and the other lesbians in the BBC's infamous article, "We're being pressured into sex by some trans women". Lily Cade in fact called for the lynching of trans women.

The queer community is no monolith. There are transphobes within the community who refuse to be associated with trans people like Me, and want us pushed out of the movement, denied healthcare, driven to suicide, or indeed even lynched. I do not think you should be basing your opinions of trans people on what these bigots say.

I have reported your comment for deliberate misgendering, and I am asking you once again to edit your comment to use a trans person's preferred pronouns. This is so that you have every opportunity to do the decent thing, and so that if you do not want to act decently, your intent in this abuse is clearly demonstrated.

A lack of belief among some individuals matters, but not enough to stop a god from being a god. Because, as you say, gods are social constructs. If we consult Merriam Webster and skip the silly monotheist definition, a god is "a being or object that is worshipped as having more than natural attributes and powers". Note that this definition doesn't say the being must actually have these powers. They must only be worshipped as such. The belief is the important thing to the definition, not the truth. This is because divinity is socially constructed. You can't deny a god's divinity except by denying the faith of their followers. If you accept that the worshippers really do believe their god is a god, you must accept that the god is a god. They may well be an undeserving god, or a lying god, or a false god, but a god they still are. If you want to tell Me that Thor isn't a god, I'm going to demand a historical source based on the Eddas, or say you're wrong. Divinity is like a job. If everyone agrees that Mr Smith is a plumber, and His boss pays Him to fix toilets, then Mr Smith is certainly a plumber. It doesn't matter if Mr Smith has never fixed a toilet in His life, society has decided He's a plumber. He could be an incredibly shitty plumber who doesn't know anything about pipes, but He's a plumber.

In fact, let Me go back to the original article and restate its conclusion, because I think you may have been misled by My use of the term "god" to refer to the gods, as you seem to consider "god" a loaded term:

The gods are psychic parasites made out of thoughts who live in the collective consciousness of humanity and really are living beings, capable of taking action as psychic parasites who can affect people's minds. This is not to say the myths are literally true, but rather to say that the myths are alive. That they feed upon worship and command legions of followers from their palaces within our imaginations.

The gods are mythical, whereas Frodo Baggins is fictional. People believe in myths. Though of course it's a fuzzy boundary. You can arrange various characters on a spectrum from myth to fiction. For example, Zeus is pure myth, Lucifer is an originally fictional character that has almost entirely become mythical, Achilles is sort of directly in the middle, Sherlock Holmes is a highly mythologised fictional character, Gandalf is a fictionalised adaptation of a myth, and Jake Sully is pure fiction because nobody gives a shit about him.

Also *You

If you don't care, then surely you don't mind editing your comment to use My preferred pronouns, seeing as you have no preference and I do.

*You. I use capitalised pronouns. And My ex-wife uses it/its.

Bigfoot doesn't live in the woods. He lives in people's heads. That's where all memes, including the gods, live. In people's heads.

Dragons certainly exist. They live in books and reproduce when someone reads a book about dragons and is inspired by it. Over time evolutionary pressures have caused the more successful of the younger dragons to become cuter and more friendly, and the most successful dragons even made the leap to film. That's how Toothless from How To Train Your Dragon came to be. He is the result of a long process of evolution of dragons. You can trace his lineage from the Beowulf dragon, to Tolkein's Smaug, through Eragon's Saphira, to the Toothless of the HTTYD books, and finally to Dreamworks' movie version. Each generation trying out new evolutionary adaptations that changed their fitness to survive and reproduce, and the niche they occupy within the ecosystem that is human thought. Toothless is the culmination of those thousands of years of evolution, purpose built to fill children's heads up with wonderful dreams.

Anarchism is a leftist theory of everything because it is radical. It's easy to just be a socialist, and to not be a feminist or a queer ally or a supporter of indigenous sovereignty. And it's easy to be a feminist without being a socialist, queer ally, or supporter of indigenous sovereignty. And all the other permutations too. But anarchism, as a political lens, points us towards all of these different struggles and says they are the same. I am not wholly convinced anarchism is the only leftist theory of everything, but I have yet to see an alternative. Rather, I see dozens of alternatives within anarchism, such as soulism, transhumanism, mutualism, and so forth.

An anarchist has solidarity with all of the leftist movements, works together with all of them. If one wishes to run any sort of leftist political movement while maintaining alliance with the entirety of the left, I believe explicitly endorsing anarchism is a good way to get that done, from a practical point of view. After all, the nazis went after the communists before the socialists, because communism is stateless and is therefore aligned with anarchism. The nazis knew that the non-communist socialists, who support the existence of the state, would not offer as much resistance as the communists to the attacking of other leftist groups.