I don't know what I should have done differently @paulcarp13 dropped me off at yoga on Capitol Hill at 4:45 and realized he didn't have his phone, we made an arrangement: "if I go home I'll text you, otherwise I'll be at Optimism Brewing when yoga gets out at 6:30" Then --
At 6:30 I went to Optimism and couldn't find him. I stayed there through one beer, then used the restroom & did one final sweep through the restaurant, assumed he must have gone home after all? Took the bus home.
By the time I got here it was 8:30 and of course he wasn't here, the car wasn't here, but his phone is still here.
So I thought, what am I supposed to do at this point? Go BACK to Capitol Hill? But that would take me at least an hour and he's the one with the car.
Anyway, since he wasn't at Optimism, I'm not sure where I'm supposed to find him. Like... sweep every street in the general area looking for the car in case he parked the car & then took a nap or something?
So I figured, well, he's the one with the car, he should eventually figure out I must be home, right? Or is he just going to cruise around Capitol Hill randomly looking for me somewhere other than where we agreed to meet?
Anyway, I'm kind of upset because I have all these scenarios in my head and none of them end well. The LEAST worrisome is that he comes home a couple of hours from now and is really mad because he was at Optimism after all and somehow we missed each other.
On a side note, the very first thing we were given to analyze in our AP lit class, start of senior year, was The Metamorphosis. I think it was supposed to make analyzing everything else seem easy in comparison? I dunno, it was one of my favorite things we read that year.
One of the challenges of scholastic literary analysis is that "because it's funny" is rarely considered an acceptable answer to the question "why did the author put that in there?"
The first evangelical weak spot that popped into my head was "extremely gullible." They're prone to snake oil, pyramid schemes, wacked-out conspiracy theories, plus grift and fraud of all kinds.
Can we use that against them?
And that presents a problem. Because, yes, if you just want to drain them of money, you can probably use the "extremely gullible" weakness to do it, but that probably doesn't lessen their political power in any meaningful way.
Also, one curious left-right asymmetry is that people on the right will say, without the teeniest hint of shame, the most outrageous stuff about the left -- like, that we're literal satan-worshiping baby eaters.
And even if they get some pushback for it, the right always barrels through and keeps on doing it until everybody else just shrugs and gives up I guess. Like this "leftism is a religion!" thing is a pretty old canard, which righties have been moaning about since GWB
Just out here on Twitter pissing off the Catholic boys.
His original statement was talking about going to Pride:
"We all know where the church stands on homogenital acts, and I affirm that teaching [..] What if we lead with love?"
"Then maybe people might take a chance to come to mass, and there they might [progress toward giving up homosexuality]”
He took offense that I characterized that as "luring"
If you've been watching me rant on here, you know that I believe the "a zygote is the same as a baby" argument is not elevating the zygote, it's dehumanizing the baby.
Which, incidentally, is why "a crab is the same as a person" arguments piss me off, sorry vegans.
I think that's an important part of the connection between the anti-abortion movement, white supremacy, and patriarchy -- this idea that personhood doesn't belong to actual persons, but is rather conveyed by the state.