Archive for the ‘mincing-words’ Category

Faggots and Retards (mincing words)   Leave a comment



how is it that you can call someone a FAGGOT and get into trouble for using a hateful word that is supposedly incendiary to the homosexual community, when it is extremely unlikely that you are even using that word in the context of anything that is even vaguely viewed as being “traditionally” gay?

ie. “The xyz footy club can’t play footy for QUIDS, they are a bunch a of GIRLY SKIRT FAGGOTS!!”

for those who don’t get the reference: “footy” in this context is *not* traditionally a very “gay” sort of thing, it is a very manly type of thing where lots of manly men man types nudge and throw and kick a bit of a pig skin ball around a big open field, quite often watched by large crowds cheering them on as they score points throwing said pig-skin ball around, while tackling, injuring and sometimes beating the crap out of each other. Basically it is the modern day, “politically correct” equivalent of the gladiator type battles that the Romans used to have, “politically correct” in that no-one is *supposed* to die. my how we’ve grown up, we don’t kill each other for entertainment and sport these days, but we still pay good money to watch people beat the crap out of each other?? indeed, how we have grown..

So using the word FAGGOT is supposedly insensitive, but we can post images of gays and men in drag as an insult to other people online, which is deliberately using an explicit and obvious reference to “gayness” as a basis for the insult itself, in other words the insult is “YOU ARE A HOMOSEXUAL, HAHAHHAHAH!”

point being: you can call someone a FAGGOT and get into trouble, yet you can post an image representing homosexuality, and not get into trouble, or at least be tolerated.

while those notions by themselves, kind of don’t make any sense in that they are hypocritical of each other, if we combine those notions with the following, that’s when it really starts to totally make NO sense…

ie. how is it that you can call someone a RETARD and get NOT into trouble for using a hateful word that is supposedly derogatory to the mentally challenged when you are not really using that word in the context of those poor unfortunates who actually are mentally incapacitated, but then you DO get into trouble when you attempt to insult another person online by posting an *image* that quite clearly shows a mentally challenged person that obviously has down syndrome or are otherwise similarly mentally challenged, as if to say “you are mentally challenged, you are incapable of independent rational thought, you can’t look after yourself, you are a dumbarse, YOU ARE A RETARD!”???

in summary:

how is that you can call someone a FAGGOT to insult them and get into trouble for not being “P.C.”, but we call each other RETARDS all day and no-one blinks an eye?


how is that you can post a picture of a mentally challenged person to insult someone else and cause an uproar of disapproval, but then we often deliberately insult people with quite explicit images of homosexual and effeminate behaviour, and cause an uproar of laughter?

This does not make sense… and it’s very hypocritical, but that’s what we do, we have people who get offended by the word FAGGOT, but they don’t have a problem when somebody uses the word RETARD, and those same people often will not be offended by seeing an image of a person that is clearly homosexual in a very obvious way, but they’ll get all upset when they are exposed to an image of a mentally challenged individual …

I believe the people who act like this, to be the some of biggest bigots we have, as that’s being two faced, it’s alright to be a cunt all the time, that’s staying in character, but to find offence in one thing, but then not the other, then what’s the source of your fucking hypocritical problem?

I have a theory…

You don’t like to *SEE* mentally challenged people because it offends you, as *YOU* don’t ever want to be like that but you know that it’s out of your control and if it where true, then there would be nothing you go do about it, so you are perfectly happy to call people retards as an affirmation that that would never happen to you, because if it was going to happen, it would have *already* happened as you are likely to be born mentally challenged, ie. it’s not something you would likely choose if somehow you were given the option.

At the same time, you don’t mind seeing extreme representations of gay behaviour because you know that *YOU* will never actually go to that extreme and be like that yourself, but you get offended by the use of the word FAGGOT because you are afraid that deep down, you aren’t sure that you wouldn’t go off and start being a GAY yourself.

In other words you see the specific image of a mentally challenged person and reject that as offensive as that won’t happen to you, but you find the image of a sexual orientation different to yours to be humorous, because you know that you would never consciously choose to actually go and do such a thing.

Thus meaning that the word RETARD is acceptable because there is nothing you would do that would make you consciously make you mentally challenged, but you find the word FAGGOT unacceptable because at some level, you know that it’s possible for you to be a homosexual, there’s nothing stopping you from choosing to run with your feelings.

Posted 13 November, 2010 by manabrau in gays, mincing-words

Jesus loves everyone… (mincing words)   Leave a comment

“Jesus loves everyone” … really???

could have fooled me, because going by the gaggle of belligerent christians that are on the internet, it’s pretty obvious to me that the phrase “Jesus loves everyone” is in fact, a heap of bullshit…

It’s bullshit because it seems that there is a catch to the meaning of that phrase…

Talk about “mincing words”, because when you inquire as to what “everyone” actually means in the “Jesus loves everyone” mantra, it turns out that it’s “Jesus loves everyone… except gays, muslims, atheists, Hindus, blah blah blah blah blah” or to keep a long list short, “Jesus loves everyone except those who don’t follow christianity”.

or rather – their own particular version of christianity

But wait… it seems that a lot of christians have got the idea that Jesus will love them, *if* they love Jesus first…

that sounds like an ultimatum or a threat, does it not?

That is hardly the unconditional love of Jesus that I was taught about! You don’t *decide* to love someone because of some arbitrary thing they say or do. Like you don’t get to love someone on the condition that they love you first, what sort of fucked up situation is that?

He that-eth believeth in me-eth shallest be-eth oft thou something

I mean, the bible does say

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.–KJV

What happens to people like me that don’t believe, but have been baptised already? again, christinsanity doesn’t cater for everyone – but yes – “he that does not believe” shall be damned… now it doesn’t say exactly what being damned is about but…

but what does that matter?

It doesn’t matter because I don’t believe in *whatever* this christian damnation is all about (which does make me wonder why i write these things), so if you think I should be damned for not believing in one of many gods, then fuck you too buddy!

and that’s funny too isn’t it?

because a christian can tell you that you’re going to hell on a whim.

You don’t know me, and yet this one arbitrary thing makes me bound for hell?

again, fuck you, because belief, like love, is not something that can be instantly felt or bestowed, at least not without hard concrete evidence. How do these believers expect the non-believer to suddenly accept Jesus into their heart’s in the space of fifteen seconds?

No.. faith doesn’t work like that.. Just because the believer spent the last twenty years sucking up to Jesus and god it does not mean that that two decades of belief will somehow transfer over to me in the space of a minute.

I don’t believe in Jesus so I’m going to hell

I’ve often been told “you need to believe in Jesus” by heaps of people online… “but, why is that?”, I ask … “so you can be saved” … “saved? what do i need to be saved from?”… “from hell!” … “So if I don’t believe in this Geebus, I’m going to hell?” .. “yes! that’s it!”

hrrmmm? ok! … i won’t mention that if i don’t believe in Jesus in the first place then this hell that I am bound for, is also not being believed in on my part, so this threat, is an empty threat.

if someone walked up to you and said

“you need to vote for such and such” or “vote for such and such!”

and you respond

“oh no thanks, I’m already voting for so and so”

or perhaps you don’t want to talk to them *at*all* about politics, not many people do, so you even say

“uhmm… sorry, but no thanks, I’m not into politics” or “i don’t vote” or “I don’t care”

or whatever it is that you politely say to them to make them go away…

now.. what would you do if that person then told you to


I, personally, would say “go fuck yourself!” and would be inclined to contact the office of this politician and demand to know why I was just insulted on the street, out of the blue, while i was minding my own business by one of his/her campaigners…

Believing in Jesus is not a license to be an arsehole

now, apply that situation to the christian… as a non-believer in the sky daddy god creature, if some christian walks up to me and says that I need Jesus in my life and that if I reject him, I’m going to an eternal burning lava-lamp lake of fire in hell or something, well, I am *also* inclined to tell that person to go fuck themselves

The reason being is that, in actual fact, when most christians tell me i need to believe in Jesus they are actually making a threat,

saying that I “need to believe in something or else” is a FUCKING THREAT…

if christians don’t realise they are making a threat, then that is not my problem that they are so deluded as to have their religion so deeply ingrained into their fucked up little minds that they don’t notice that they are making a threat while trying to spread the word and love of Jesus…

just because you mention Jesus, it does NOT mean that you get to say whatever the fuck you want… In fact, telling someone your opinion about anything and then demanding that someone needs to share that opinion as well,

that’s just plain fucking rude…

and besides … I love LAVA LAMPS!!

most written … 2009-05-07 …. mostly …

Enemy of God (mincing words)   Leave a comment


mostly written 3rd April 2009, mostly…

Mincing Words – Enemy of God

Here is another example of religion changing the meaning of words…

as a non-believer, if somebody used the phrase “Enemy of God” in reference to me, well…. them there’s fighting words!!

If someone calls me an enemy of god I would turn around and say “Well Bring it on, bish!!!!”.. well, maybe in real life i wouldn’t but, i’d certainly raise an eyebrow and ask the person to explain themselves… but on the internet though, HELL YES… bring it, come on! bring it BISH! ..

I’ve already been through the whole explaining this to the fundies – they didn’t care to understand they were being hostile… but the rare few of them will turn around and say..

“oh NO!! I don’t mean that makes you *my* enemy, it just means you’re an enemy of god!!”

oooooooooooooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!! i get it now… NOT! …. you change the meaning of words and we are supposed to understand? can you say arrogance?

so OK.. let’s look at the phrase “Enemy of God”

believers who use that phrase, should take very special note of all this, not that they would, as it’s obvious that most who would use the term “Enemy of God” don’t really care to know what they are actually saying. It’s “just” something they say, apparently.. so it’s all good to them…

Well, that’s just fucking unacceptable, using the term “you are an enemy of god” is a *THREAT*, and it is telling the person being threatened, to believe in god or else you are it’s enemy.

Well that’s what it says to me… Well, why else am I an enemy? I don’t believe in your god so that makes me it’s enemy?

So to the mincing of the phrase – “Enemy of God” – in the context of reality, some points to consider…..

* since when does god have an enemy that is some mere mortal being? what happened to the “all powerful” god? It’s hardly fair that god make an enemy of me, what am i going to do to destroy god? oh wait… don’t i have to believe in god in order to not believe in him.. it’s what atheists do all day

“I believe in god… NOT! Psyche!! bahahhahah… hey god? you up there? oh that’s right! you aren’t!!! bahahahaha… I believe in god… not not NOT!! hahahahaha… bahahha.. triple negative… PSYCHE!!!”

* what difference does it make if my little self doesn’t believe in god? god is an idea, so isn’t it better that ppl don’t mention their god to me, in case i destroy that idea in my head by not believing? isn’t that more painful for god? to have the idea of god go into my brain, then get spat out as some weird arse idea, and then be forgotten until the next time someone mentions it and I repeat that process, just for the fun of it… you know, like a cat, when it catches a mouse.. how it lets it go… then pounces again, lets it go, stomps it again, lets it go, etc etc… generally taunting the mouse to death…

* Am I an enemy *because* I don’t praise god, or that I don’t acknowledge it’s existence at all? or that I mock god’s existence? or is it that i just don’t care?

* Why does god need to have his ego inflated by people praising him? It’s a bit of a stretch to think that god has an ego in the first place. If god had an ego, that would explain a lot of things but then again, ego’s are supposed to be mortal things… so… hmm..

* Does god get his “power” from being praised and non-believers are a cancer sapping the life out of him by spreading their non-belief, thus if more and more ppl don’t praise him then eventually there will be nobody to praise him, so he will then disappear?

hmmmm… ?

What believers don’t seem to take note of, (ah, look the point has arrived) is how a non-believer might perceive what the believer says, even seemingly innocuous little phrases.

When a believer talks about “god” and what this god likes and what god does not like or god’s wishes or whatever – the non-believer will just regard what the believer is saying as if they are talking about *themselves*.

What is this god to the non-believer? It is an IDEA or more accurately an OPINION.

Now I am all for everyone having their opinion, but when you disagree with me, you don’t get to fucking challenge me to admit somehow that i am wrong and that you are indeed correct because this “opinion” of yours somehow supersedes or outranks my opinion, if that’s who you think you are then don’t bother speaking to me.

Telling me I need to believe in Jesus is not any different to me being told I need to change telephone companies for my long distance calls. This is called, being RUDE.

So when the non-believer is told that they “need” to do something in relation to their beliefs, it’s like being told “you need to give me all your money and I won’t be giving you anything in return.”

Those famous Westboro idiots and their “GOD HATES FAGS” placards, well to me that placard actually is saying “WE HATE FAGS” or “GOD HATES FAGS BECAUSE WE SAY SO”

So call me an enemy of god if you want, but to me, this god is only in the mind of the believer, so a believer is calling me an enemy of this ‘god’ idea, so being called an “Enemy of God”, at least to the non-believer, is actually saying to that non-believer that they are an enemy of the believer’s opinion and if you are an enemy to somebody’s beliefs and opinions, eg. what they feel is right, then are you not an enemy of that person as well?

and what’s that? that’s fucking rude.. and that has nothing to do with god or religion. it’s fucking rude being told I am enemy of god for just being here.

that’s no different to some scientist saying that you’re a piece of shit infidel scum for not concurring with his scientific findings…

an ode to a creationist… which inspired the above rant…

fuck you – i don’t hate your god – there is no such thing – what a fucking waste of time it is to hate this god of yours – no, what I hate is the threats you fucked up christians keep making like it’s your god given mission to *be* fucking stupid pricks but then you cry BOO fucking HOO when ppl call you out on it… well FUCK YOU

that video promotes violence – end of fucking story

christianity is supposed to be about peace and understanding – calling non-believers enemies of this god of yours is bullshit – this god of yours ONLY exists in your mind – making us enemies of YOUR god delusion

we are enemies of a FIGMENT of your own imagination

so again fuck you, see if you can figure that one out

Posted 3 April, 2009 by manabrau in M.S., mincing-words, Religion Sux Arse

Anti-Semite (mincing-words)   Leave a comment


originally and mostly written 3/March/09, mostly….

Here’s something strange, when certain words are combined their meanings change from what they should actually mean. Especially where religion is involved.

“So what” you say?

Well… just what happened to separating church and state?

The very meaning of certain aspects of our language is being altered to accommodate religious notions of bigotry, and what religion isn’t bigotry? Every religion excludes some other group of people, that’s *how* it works, that’s bigotry and calling your religion the “religion of peace” or whatever is not going to change that.

Think about it, if everyone had the same religion, the very word “religion” wouldn’t exist…

So, let’s start with something simple… “anti” .. the literal opposite (up is anti-down and down is anti-up.. yes, that’s a stupid example) or anti refers to the opposer of something. Like an anti-religionist, an antichrist and an anticipate (the opposite of a “cipate” pfft! look it up if u don’t believe me..)

Dictionary: anti–

or ant–


   1. Opposite: antimere.
   2. Opposing; against: antiapartheid.
   3. Counteracting; neutralizing: antacid.
   4. Destroying: antiaircraft.

   1. Inverse: antilogarithm.
   2. Displaying opposite characteristics: antihero.

[Greek, from anti, opposite.]

now something a little bit more complicated, Semite

Dictionary: Sem·ite


1. A member of a group of Semitic-speaking peoples of the Near East and northern Africa, including the Arabs, Arameans, Babylonians, Carthaginians, Ethiopians, Hebrews, and Phoenicians.
2. A Jew.
3. Bible. A descendant of Shem.

[Back-formation from SEMITIC.]

so an “anti-Semite” should be someone who opposes the “Semitic-speaking peoples of the Near East and northern Africa, including the Arabs, Arameans, Babylonians, Carthaginians, Ethiopians, Hebrews, and Phoenicians.” which includes Jewish people, “Hebrews” are listed after all, so there is a double reference to Judaism, triple as I would guess “Shem” to be an Old Testament dude.

however…. next, we have something a lot more complicated…

Dictionary: an·ti-Sem·i·tism (ăn’tē-sĕm’ĭ-tĭz’əm, ăn’tī-)

1. Hostility toward or prejudice against Jews or Judaism.
2. Discrimination against Jews.

Now it may say up above that “Semite” is in reference to Jewish people, three times actually, but the term also applies to pretty much every one *else* in the middle east and in the north and the north-east of Africa…

But when the term “anti-Semite” is used… it merely applies to Jewish people…

how did that happen?

From what I’ve researched, the people who refer to themselves as Jewish, mainly originate from Europe *anyway*. I’m not denying that they may have descended from the Hebrews of the Holy Land of biblical times thousands of years ago, but…

the point being: how is someone who has never even met a Jew let alone had long enough conversations with them that the topic of Anti-Semitism would come up for long enough to get the “proper” meaning of what it means, to the certain ppl this meaning applies to? (if that makes sense)

to me Anti-Semite means the “opposition to those that are Semites”, well, not any more since I looked this up, it would never occur to me that anti-Semite meant anti-Jewish if I heard it in the context of, for example, a news report.

Are we expected to glean the common/popular meaning of words via how the media presents those terms?

Like when “Passion of the Christ” came out, it caused anti-Semitism, and that didn’t make sense to me. and what is with ppl getting up the Jews for killing Jesus?

they wouldn’t have their precious cross to make crooked if Jesus wasn’t crucified!!!

if the Jews didn’t put him to death in the manner that they did, we wouldn’t have christianity. If anyone should be pissed off it’s the people who don’t like christianity…

“Damn you Jews!! you should have just patted Jesus on the head and ignored him!! but nooooooo… just had to make a big spectacle out of it and have him tortured to death and now we have christianity… Thanks a lot! BASTARDS!!!!”

No wonder the world is dumbing down, and no wonder people “hate” people that they have never met and never will meet, seeing how they are on the other side of the world and all.

This “anti-semite” thing is just another stupid religious thing that creates division lines amongst people by having it’s separatism built right into our language.

It also creates an air of having to be careful when using the terms “semite” and “anti-semite” like you have to tip toe around the topic. Well, it does to me, because I have to think about what I’m saying, doing double takes before I speak, “Oh SHIT!! can I say that?” …

It’s little things like this that actually makes me tip toe around the topic of *any* race, like you can’t describe anyone as being an “Arab” or “Chinese” or “Dark” or “Black” or anything to describe how someone looks who has even a slightly different racial look about them without having a feeling of being thought of as a racist by using those terms.

It’s like what other little nuances do I have to worry about so that I don’t unintentionally offend some religious fruit cake who is lacking a spine? Like when you offend somebody’s utterly ridiculous religious belief, it’s just not polite to say “Oh!! take your religion and FUCK OFF back to Jerkistan if you’re that fucking stupid!!! JESUS H CHRIST!!”

maybe this is just the Australian schooling curriculum of the 70s/80s, maybe it was just the primary school I went to, which did have a substantial aboriginal population? Maybe everyone should grow up in a small town where you get to know the same people over many years, where you are forced to grow up with different races?

Posted 3 March, 2009 by manabrau in mincing-words