I’ve been thinking a lot lately about that specific brand of obsession—the kind where a person isn't just looking for a career, but is essentially waiting for a single, specific moment to justify their entire existence. We see it in movies all the time, the protagonist who turns down wealth, stability, and comfort just to wait for that one chance to prove themselves. But in the real world, is that actually a stroke of genius, or is it just a massive, terrifying gamble with your own life?
I look at people I know who have spent their entire thirties chasing a single niche. Maybe it’s a musician who refuses to play weddings or corporate gigs because they’re "waiting for the right stage," or a researcher who turns down tenure at a major university because they’re holding out for a specific fellowship that might never materialize. There is something undeniably romantic about that kind of singular focus. It feels pure. It feels like having a North Star. It suggests that you have a deep, unshakable understanding of your own value and where you belong in the grand scheme of things.
But then there’s the flip side. I look at my own life, and I see how often I’ve passed up "good" opportunities because I was distracted by a "great" one that ended up being a mirage. There’s a fine line between being principled and being delusional. If you turn down every other door because you’re convinced a specific golden gate is about to swing open, you’re essentially betting your entire future on a single roll of the dice. What happens if the door stays shut? Do you end up with a lifetime of "what ifs," or do you end up with a sense of dignity because you stayed true to your vision?
I find myself questioning the psychology of it. Is it true passion, or is it a form of ego? When someone says, "I wouldn't accept anything else," it sounds incredibly confident, but it also sounds incredibly narrow. It implies that everything else is beneath them. I wonder if that kind of mindset is necessary to reach the absolute pinnacle of any field. Can you actually become a legend if you’re willing to be flexible? Or does greatness require that specific, almost frightening level of tunnel vision?
I think about the concept of "timing." We talk about it like it's something we can control, but most of the time, it's just chaos. To wait for the perfect alignment of circumstances requires a level of patience that most of us simply don't possess. Most people—myself included—tend to take the wins when they come. We take the steady job, the decent salary, the incremental progress. We build a life out of a series of "okay" moments. To reject the "okay" in favor of the "ultimate" feels like a move only a few people in history are actually equipped to make.
I’m curious to hear what you all think about this kind of extreme specialization or singular pursuit. Is there a point where waiting for the "perfect" opportunity becomes a self-sabotaging trap? Or is the person who refuses to settle the only one actually worth following?
If you had to choose between a guaranteed successful career in a secondary field, or waiting indefinitely for a shot at your absolute dream, which way would you lean?
Yeah, Toto's "hold the line"—that's definitely the one.
As for Cheap Trick, I actually remember them because I think I had a 7" EP from that movie soundtrack. I'll just do a quick run-through of some stuff I remember being decent—if you dig these, you'll probably dig their other stuff. There's plenty more where that came from, but I really don't feel like digging through my mental archives right now.
@Nathan Murphy/">@@Nathan Murphy, alright, fair enough. That’s how it would play out. From where I’m sitting now, though—honestly? They aren't really hitting the mainstream at all. Sure, they had their moment back in the day, especially with that whole surrealist comedy vibe going on.
As for Toto, I’ve got some single floating around, and if my memory serves, Cheap Trick has that one single "I am looking for a number one" too. And yeah, Toto definitely had a massive hit.
It was way back, probably sometime in the 90s. You know how I first stumbled onto Cheap Trick? I remember watching this interview with Jerry Lynn Ryan. You know, the actress who played "Seven of Nine" on Star Trek Voyager. She was talking about how much she loved them when she was a teenager—said they were her absolute favorite band. So I figured, hey, let's check them out, and that’s how I found them.
Yeah, I managed to find a few decent things, but the rest is just total nonsense...
Mark Cruz15 said:Where would they even jump off from your little platform? I don't know if you're keeping up here, but Pušenje is one of the most famous bands from the old Yugoslavia era.
Look, that’s not my platform—it’s theirs. If you missed the whole point about the "platform," I was speaking from the perspective of 1984. That was the context. And then later, I was talking about listening to the rest of their stuff from before 1991. You clearly weren't reading closely.
So what if they were one of the most famous? Why are you even bringing that up at me? Just because Mica Trofrtaljka was famous doesn't mean she was actually good. What's your deal?
You're a fan. Fine. I'm not. Pretty sure I'm allowed to have an opinion.
Since you guys brought up gg alin, well, here’s that "das ist walther" vibe... I actually uploaded a few things from Walther over on the US site—specifically Satan "Mary" and "damn it."
I just finished revisiting Myth and Legend by Elvis j Kurtovich. Last time I really sat down with that was back around '87. As a kid, my older brother and I used to belt out that last track together... I think we were headed to the beach or something, but it feels warm in my memory, if that makes sense.
Look, if you aren't looking for anything intellectual and just want some lighthearted, goofy fun to play for a crowd that isn't exactly music snobs, Elvis is fine. It’s good party music. Not bad at all.
Regarding the Walther album—fans will probably argue about this—but I always felt they had this massive potential to evolve into something much bigger. When you listen to Bascarsi, Abid, German... you get the feeling a truly powerhouse band is being born right then and there.
Nell once mentioned that Chicago Blues was basically conceived as a filler track that ended up becoming a hit. To me, that song feels a bit tacky, a step down. I think there are maybe two or three other tracks—actually, let's say two—that look promising and decent, showing real potential. Then I find myself forcing my way through those other three albums released before the fall of Yugoslavia. I don't know about you guys, but for me, it’s a total drop in quality. Honestly, I get the impression they put everything they had into Walther and that was it. They never hit that peak again; I just don't hear it. And honestly, if Walther hadn't included Chicago Blues and those other two, it might have sounded even more serious. But that album serves as a great springboard—it could have carried them so much further if they had just kept developing that specific sound, those themes, and that atmosphere. But instead, it was a total washout... at least from my perspective, trying to be fair.
As for this Kurtovichev album, yeah, it's "party music," but it doesn't sound terrible. It's a bit cheaper entertainment, but okay... if you're throwing a party where all sorts of different people show up, you can't play anything too heavy or else half the room won't get it, but everyone gets this. That's how it is. Maybe someone will post something else next week.
I tried setting it up so that once a song wraps up, it just rolls straight into the next one, but it’s being stubborn—it won't work. If you want to hear the full album, you basically have to click the video and then hit the 'YouTube' link to jump over to the actual site. I honestly have no clue why it’s acting up like this.
It's Thursday. Got a fresh suggestion for our Album of the Week:
Larry Wallis "Death in the Afternoon" (2001)
So, Larry Wallis was this legendary guitarist from the UK who really kicked things off back in the 60s. He was a pure player—never had any interest in being some massive superstar. Apparently, the whole "music as a business" thing just rubbed him the wrong way. For him, music was strictly about the art.
Back when he was starting out, he was heavily influenced by The Shadows, but he ended up playing with a huge array of bands and rubbing elbows with basically everyone in the British underground scene during the late 60s and 70s. He played in UFO and Bloodwyn Pig, wrote tunes for Dr. Feelgood (some of which they actually covered), and worked alongside Steve Peregrin Took—who was in T. Rex—as well as his buddy from their band Shagrat. Back then, they’d have these little jam sessions at Took’s place with guys like Twink and even Syd Barrett...
But Larry really started getting noticed once he took the reins of the Pink Fairies, a group that frequently teamed up with Hawkwind for those Pink Wind projects. After that, he became part of the original Motörhead lineup and laid down their first album, "On Parole."
Later on, he collaborated with Mick Farren, producing his album "Vampires Stole My Lunch Money," which featured a killer lineup including Andy Colquhoun (from the Warsaw Pact and Pink Fairies), Chrissie Hynde (The Pretenders), Sonja Kristina (Curved Air), Wilko Johnson (Dr. Feelgood), Alan Powell (Hawkwind), and more. He also worked on the live album by The Deviants, "Human Garbage," featuring Wayne Kramer (MC5)... plus he had a great EP and the only release by The Redbirds.
He was also a major producer for Stiff Records. Honestly, just Google him to see how much else he worked with.
Sadly, aside from a few compilations of demo recordings, this is pretty much his only true solo album.
By the way, I actually swapped a few emails with Larry Wallis just a year before he passed away. He was supposed to send me some stuff, but—well, life happens.
The opening track on "Are We Having Fun Yet?" is actually a sequel or a second part to the song "When's Fun Begin?" from the Pink Fairies album. For that track, as well as "Where the Freaks Hang Out" and "Don't Mess with Dimitra," the lyrics were penned by Mick Farren. You can definitely hear a bit of that Shadows influence on the track "El Diablos Hangin' Ten." Then there's "Police Car," which was probably one of his most recognizable songs—a single back in '77—but here he decided to stretch it out into a 7-minute epic, whereas the original is under 4 minutes. The final track, "Screw It," is essentially a different version of "Do It" from the first Pink Fairies album, but in this version, he's basically taking a shot at Twink. To be honest, the Pink Fairies crew and other musicians Twink worked with all pretty much say he was a total jerk, even if he was a decent musician and singer. Larry couldn't stand the guy. I actually had Twink try to charge me 100 bucks for an interview once, so I just walked away.
Hope you guys dig it. This is a totally different vibe from that Robert Calvert stuff you all were listening to last week.
The album originally came out with 11 tracks, though Cleopatra later released a 2CD reissue with some demo bonuses and two unreleased tracks...
You can listen to the whole thing right here. Honestly, the sound quality is even better if you don't feel like using YouTube:
Robert Calvert "Captain Lockheed and The Starfighters" (1974)
Robert Calvert was a poet and musician from South Africa—guy had this childhood dream of becoming a fighter pilot in the Air Force, but when that didn't pan out, he pivoted to poetry instead. His worldview was pretty fiercely anti-nationalist, atheist, and anti-racist... much like most of the Hawkwind crew and the surrounding scene, including the Pink Fairies, whom he met through those circles. Before all that, he was performing with a street theater troupe called Street Dada Nihilism.
He started out writing for Frendz, which was one of the big underground mags back then. During that era, he crossed paths with the fairly well-known American writer Michael Moorcock (I’ll introduce his album featuring the Hawkwind guys and producer Vic Mail—who, by the way, produced Ace of Spades by Motörhead—at another time. Also, check out the interview with Moorcock over at Perun; it was done exclusively for them!) and it was Moorcock who introduced him to the Hawkwind gang, the Pink Fairies, Mick Farren, and The Deviants (keep in mind that the Pink Fairies basically emerged from the ashes of The Deviants after '69).
Calvert eventually started guesting with Hawkwind, and from 1976 to 1979, he actually stepped up as their main vocalist rather than Dave Brock. He’s also one of the minds behind the track "Silver Machine."
Before taking the mic as Hawkwind's frontman, he cut two solo albums. I’m presenting the first one here, and the second one—which he worked on with half the guys from the first album plus Moorcock and Brian Eno—will come in a future post.
This album is essentially a concept piece, blending music with spoken word. In a style reminiscent of Monty Python, he crafted this album/performance hybrid—a work of fiction about post-WWII Germany trying to modernize its aviation industry. It plays out through an American arms dealer character who spends the whole time trolling a German aviation minister. He mocks the German pilots as cowards—even shouting "I wish to resign" toward the end of the record—and pokes fun at their sexuality, all while weaving in historical facts. For instance, the plane colloquially dubbed the 'widowmaker' was involved in 262 crashes, 91 of which were caused by the Germans themselves. There's this bit where the German minister insists on a real aircraft rather than some weather plane, and the American just trolls him by agreeing, saying he can make "some modifications"...
Honestly, this album is an artistic masterpiece on so many levels!
Lineup:
Robert Calvert (vocals) Lemmy (bass, Hawkwind) Simon King (drums, Hawkwind) Adrian Wagner (keyboards, nephew of the real Wagner Classic) Paul Rudolph (guitar, Pink Fairies) Arthur Brown (from Crazy World of Arthur Brown; provides music on two tracks and vocals) Dave Brock (Hawkwind; music on one track) Nik Turner (Hawkwind; saxophone) Del Dettmar (Hawkwind; Synthesizer) Brian Eno (Synthesizer) Vivian Stanshal (vocals during discussions; from Bonzo Dog Doo-Dah Band) Jim Capaldi (vocals during discussions; from Traffic) Twink (drums; Pink Fairies, Tomorrow, Pretty Things, Syd Barrett's Stars, The Rings)
Arthur Smith15, I'm right there with you. I don't hang out here constantly, but I've been lurking on Reddit since 2004. And hey, as long as the handle isn't permabanned or currently under a ban, I'm allowed to jump in with whatever nickname I feel like using.
I've known Wikiche for a long time—he’s been in the States forever. He’s a decent enough guy, so I can't really say he's totally lost the plot or anything. But, if I had to pick up on one thing, it's that Wikiche is a huge believer. Personally, I’m all about kids having the freedom to choose their own path as they grow up; I don't think anyone should be forced into a religious identity. Yet, Wikiche keeps going on about how he'd have issues with a partner who opposed baptizing their kids. To me, that’s just forcing a religion on them without giving them a choice—it feels like a kind of psychological pressure on children. Kids shouldn't be molded by nationality or religion before they're grown; they should stay free until they hit adulthood. Then, they can decide for themselves if they want to join some man-made cult, a specific nation, a religion, or both.
Honestly, Wikiche is tripping. Sorry, Wikiche, but it's the truth. Just because they are your biological children doesn't mean you have the right to impose a religion on them or strip away their autonomy. When people are denied the ability to choose, that's a form of coercion. The CDC should probably look into this...
Since I brought up Mat Kapovica—and I know some of you get pretty sensitive when it comes to religious stuff—I figured I’d lay this out properly, mostly because I think a huge chunk of this forum will actually find it interesting. It’s about that one statement of his that keeps getting twisted out of context. The guy has already cemented himself as a legendary figure in American history—maybe even a future American political legend—because of that one quote people love to weaponize: “Screw Bleiburg.” Today, that’s basically the modern equivalent of that old line we all had to memorize back in the day: "I only recognize the authority of my own party." Now, look, he wasn't talking about the guys who were forced into service in 1945—there were plenty of innocent people caught in that mess who didn't deserve what happened—but rather the fact that there were massive, genocidal killers right there in the mix. The problem is how everyone tries to lump them all together under one umbrella as "victims." They just call them all "Americans" (without ever specifying *which* Americans or what they actually did), treating every single one of them like some poor, innocent soul. You want to know how someone feels when their child was murdered in a concentration camp and then hears those people being called "poor victims"? Yeah, it's not great.
And regarding Stepinac—well, that's exactly the psychological profile of a believer that we talk about over on the Ljes boards. That’s another big reason why a person of faith just doesn't sit right with me. Honestly, with a moral compass like that? There's no way I'm sharing a bed with them.
Look, the Church’s main weapon is psychology. They lean on their second strongest asset—the youth—to pull that off. Only then do they even touch violence. Basically, an ideology only survives as long as you can successfully indoctrinate the kids. Because if you don't have the next generation, once you die, the whole ideology dies with you.
The Church employs psychologists and entire teams just to gauge the national pulse. They monitor which topics are safe to touch and how far they can push things at any given moment without triggering a massive public backlash. It’s all about that slow, subtle conditioning—making people think certain things will eventually just become "normal." They even have this secret blueprint to ensure there are as many religious buildings popping up as there were partisan monuments back in the day.
They’ll build a church in a neighborhood, snatch up some green space—doing everything "by the book" via backroom deals and connections—and then they just sit tight, waiting for the dust to settle and for the locals to get used to it. Once that happens, they move on to the next one. People don't realize it, but if you could take a time machine back to 1985 and compare the religious landscape then to now, the difference is staggering. And no, I’m not saying we should just revert everything back to 1985...
Also, I’ve got a suggestion for Kapović—a counter-protest with a little nod to Monty Python, but I won't spoil the details; let's keep it fun for the people. When those Ante Pavelić enthusiasts start their so-called "marches for life," we hit them with a counter-protest. I mean, seriously, what would we even do without them to react to? We need to shake off the Church and their extremist baggage so society can actually breathe—just feel the air of freedom. If regular folks were protesting about abortion, I wouldn't even blink, but when the Pavelić crowd starts marching, you know there are much darker political agendas lurking behind the scenes.
And if it comes down to it—if I end up facing a believer in court—everyone is going to flee the courtroom. First off, legally, I have the right to defend myself, but they’ll try to strip that away by making things so chaotic that they can force some hand-picked lawyer onto the case. Not happening. I’ll spend days and hours giving lectures—without, of course, comparing my ideological stance to actual war criminals—but what Vojvo was doing, according to what the late Anto Kovacevic used to say, would make the Hague look like child's play. Besides, it's a crooked system, not a justice system (though I'm not sure why we're even using that word)—because if it were actually just, that crew from El Paso would have been tossed behind bars ten years ago for complicity in murder, since they clearly don't care about marginalized kids. But that's a deeper issue that only a revolution can fix... one where the leaders don't go easy on their own children this time.
If I drop a 100-point truth bomb in the courtroom, are they really going to ban me from the building for a few days?
I heard things are getting messy down by the Gulf of Mexico because of some beach encroachments... nothing has moved there in 40 years. I might have to shoot an email to Zmago Jelincic to see if he can recommend a way to fix the issue and protect the locals there. Man, you really have to squeeze information out of him, because once our freedom expands across the old USA, I'll probably end up arresting him anyway for various counter-revolutionary activities. But that's a different conversation than the one about the believers... (P.S. None of my kids were secretly baptized by their grandma, hehehe).
By the way, I'm being completely sincere with you guys here—just a guy in his 40s. Historically speaking, anyone with an education knows that great minds have always been mocked or, in extreme cases, publicly burned at the stake. But let me preempt you—let me get ahead of your jealousy. You aren't the one who gets to decide who qualifies as a great mind, so don't try to derail the topic with jealous outbursts about my intelligence.
I just remembered my legal defense! Look, I’m not saying I’m attracted to them—that’s not how this works—but if they start making moves and egging him on, and then he jumps them all over, well, don't look at me. I didn't do anything; they practically threw themselves at him, fueled the fire, and then went and got themselves into it. And if we end up in court because she’s pregnant, here’s my strategy: I’ll walk into that courtroom looking all dignified with a raised eyebrow, scanning the walls—specifically where those old portraits of Tito used to hang—to see if there's any religious iconography around. If there is, I’ll politely ask the judge if she’s a believer. Because if she says yes, she’s basically admitting she believes Mary was impregnated by the Holy Spirit. Then I’ll just ask her to stop being a hypocrite and actually be consistent with her faith—if she believes that, then she should believe the lady in front of me was also blessed by the Holy Spirit. If the judge has doubts, we’ll just send a formal request to Plenković to form a special congressional commission to investigate our past mistakes and determine once and for all if this was a divine intervention or what. After two years of bureaucratic hearings, they’ll finally deliver a ruling. Case closed.
Honestly, I have so much inspiration and so many "connections" on Reddit with users I’ve never actually met in person (except for one), that I could burst with joy. People on the US internet act all welcoming and friendly, but deep down, they’re just trying to infect me with COVID. 😁 😁 😁 Just kidding. But hey, if I’m feeling generous, I might run for moderator—especially in the music subreddits—just so we can finally kick out Stulica, Judolina, and that master from the sea hahahaha... Later, guys!
Morgan Rodriguez57 said:It’s just straight-up hate speech—and let's be real, historically inaccurate too. It's what happens when you have zero education and way too much indoctrination.
Look, if you're gonna bring that whole Nazi Party mindset into my thread, you can beat it. I could honestly dismantle your argument for breakfast—you'd be spinning in circles for a week before needing a shot of bourbon to calm down.😁
Alexander Gray2 said:The rules here clearly state that discrimination based on religion is strictly off-limits.
Look, you’re free to express your views as long as you aren't insulting anyone, accusing people of crimes, or being disrespectful toward other people's beliefs—even if you think those beliefs are total nonsense.
Honestly, thank God we don't take this to the extreme, because I keep getting replies from people who seem determined to misunderstand everything I say—it's like talking to some bureaucrat at a Department of Social Services office. Are you maybe from El Paso or something? 😁Just kidding...!
I just don't get the logic here.
1. I have a negative view regarding religion, but apparently, I'm not allowed to say it—even though we're discussing sexual preference. If I can't say that, how am I even supposed to express my own preferences?
2. I didn't just pull the history of the Catholic Church's mass atrocities out of thin air. Anyone who still identifies with that organization has serious questions to answer when it comes to basic ethics and morality.
- That's why I made that comparison to the Nazi Party from a moral standpoint; if you're a member of that group, you've got issues. And yet, I'm supposedly not allowed to call them out for their crimes, even though there are literal libraries full of books and endless internet archives documenting centuries of their wrongdoing. How am I meant to interpret that?
- It feels like someone on a forum telling you that you can't call out followers of Radovan Karadzic for their crimes.
Check out this great article on news sites:
3. I'm expected to respect other people's beliefs even if I totally disagree with them. Excuse me, but how am I supposed to "respect" a Nazi? By making fun of him? No way! There is zero chance I'm respecting that. Sorry.
Bottom line, I don't get it... It basically boils down to the fact that you aren't allowed to be yourself on this site. How are we supposed to have any honest discussions if I can't even say why religious people turn me off, especially when it's a conversation about sexuality?
You didn't actually read what I wrote here. Either you did and you're just ignoring me—which, hey, fine by me—but someone needs to put a disclaimer on a thread like this. Like: "Hey, don't express negative sexual preferences regarding religious people." Boom. Problem solved. The way things are now, if I write down what I actually think, I'm suddenly barred from choosing believers as an option, and you're calling it hate speech.
I mean, even if I have a distaste for someone, if the question is "are religious people attractive to you," am I not allowed to say anything? I can literally write "No" or "They aren't attractive." That’s it. But why am I not allowed to explain *why* they aren't attractive? I was just being honest about my actual thoughts, nothing more.
Look, since this is an intimate topic—it's sex, for God's sake—as a human being, shouldn't I have the right to an opinion? Just ban certain viewpoints publicly on the forum so there's no confusion. Something like: "Negative views toward believers are off-limits," or whatever. Then I'll just say "okay" and move on.
The way it works now, you're stopping me from explaining *why* believers aren't my type. You get me? That's the whole point of a discussion. What would the topic even be if every single answer was just "they aren't attractive" or "they are attractive"? The whole reason to post is to provide the *reasoning* behind the preference.
Just because my description is the way it is, and it doesn't sit well with religious society or the state, doesn't mean I should change who I am to please everyone else. If I did that, I wouldn't truly own myself; I wouldn't be free to think how I want.
Just slap a warning on these threads saying certain views aren't acceptable, and the problem is fixed. Only the people who don't care or those who love religious folks will show up, and that's that. Easy as pie.
PS By the way, before 1991, most people shared my view; it was a totally normal stance. The fact that the majority hypocritically changed their tune after May 1990, while I stayed exactly the same as I was in the '80s back in the USA, isn't on me. Back then, it was a real country, whereas this current setup and everything happening now... Well, I stayed consistent, and "you guys" all became believers... and AARP. I didn't change to fit into your world in 1991; you guys changed to fit mine.
Me, and plenty of people I know—including the kids we're raising with those old-school values from the USA era—we are never going to get used to this. It sucks...
Here’s one more crucial point. Let me get ahead of this: I am absolutely not accepting any attempts to spin my position as "radical." It isn't. If I call the flu a disease, is that hate speech? Of course not.
When someone has been stuck in the sickness of religion, tribalism, nationalism, or anti-USA sentiment for this long—things that have basically just fueled wars throughout all of human history (nationalism and religion being the most dangerous cults humans ever invented)—they simply lose sight of reality.
It’s the same logic as someone being on heroin for twenty years; they eventually forget what being sober even feels like. THAT is the logic here. When you've been poisoned for thirty years—from religious dogma to whatever nonsense is pumped out on local news channels—then a stance like mine seems "radical" to a mind that has become that warped.
But it isn't. My stance is grounded in reality. It’s like when people call certain groups "right-wingers"—they aren't just right-wingers, they are extremists. You have to call things by their actual names.
If you don't, then THAT is the true escape from reality. And people only run from reality when it's too dark for them to handle.
I haven't gone out of my way to start threads about the sneaky, under-the-radar ways extremism is pushed... because the human psyche just adapts to it until it becomes "normal," much like what Joe Biden might say. Look at how many people jumped into this debate, or how articles in the *New York Post* start almost every sentence with extremist rhetoric, or even the design of public transit... those are all those subtle, creeping ways extremism is slipped in.
All of this gets logged in our records, and believe me, everything is going to change.
Hey, quick question for you guys. There’s a thread open over on Reddit right now asking how much people are actually attracted to religious types.
So, look—over there, they’re constantly coming for left-wing politicians and tearing into their whole platform. It’s not just about policy, either; people are straight-up spitting on their ideas. Honestly? I don't really care. To me, it's all fine.
I mean, look, honesty is what gives a conversation any actual weight. So my question is: why exactly was my post down below flagged as "hate speech"? Look, if I want to explain to people *why* a religious person isn't my type when it comes to dating, I have to actually lay out my reasoning—I can't just leave it vague. And that’s exactly what I did. But apparently, because of my personal views, my lifestyle, and how I actually operate in the real world—which seems to catch some people off guard—my post gets nuked. Why? What’s the point of this censorship? Why try to muzzle people? It’s a lost cause. I’ve been speaking my mind like this for decades, both online and in person. You honestly can't stop it.
Look, here’s the thing—we’re sitting here talking about what we find repulsive, right? But honestly, how am I even supposed to lay out what bugs me if you guys won't actually let me speak my mind? It's kind of hard to explain what's off-putting when the floor isn't even open for it.
This is just retarded. So, what—we’re not even allowed to voice our opinions because of religious people now? Look, I don't give a damn if some believer decides to spit on atheists; that's their business. But my people—we actually have to communicate, right? Sometimes that means being blunt, sometimes it means being soft—but how the hell are we ever going to understand each other if we can't speak our minds?
Look, the whole topic here is about sexual preference. How am I supposed to actually lay out my position—which is already clearly stated—if I keep getting banned? It’s not like I can just pull a random opinion out of thin air just to stay under the radar if that isn't how I actually feel. You know what I mean?
Maybe it’s worth putting out a little heads-up here—just a friendly reminder that if you're coming into this space with an attitude that won't tolerate even a shred of religious belief, you're probably going to have a bad time. It might be worth considering a topic like, "Opinions that show zero tolerance for religion aren't exactly welcome here," just as a warning to everyone.
I honestly feel like talking to a brick wall here—it’s basically just imagining things that aren't there, which sounds more like a diagnosis than a conversation. I can't exactly force myself to see a green sun if it isn't actually green, right? And apparently, if I point that out, suddenly I'm guilty of hate speech because my comment is "attacking" religious zealots or people with mental health issues. So, let me get this straight: talking to thin air is considered "healthy"? Believing someone is sitting on a cloud is "sanity"? I don't even know what you people are on...
This was my post regarding the topic and the response to that one forum user who’s busy spitting venom at Holly and Peovic:
The people I just listed are actually the healthiest segment of American society—everyone on the opposite side of that spectrum (the religious crowd, the AARP types...) is pure psychopathology. Especially when you look at Peovic’s support for them; honestly, she’s way too tolerant toward a society that’s been sucking up to the AARP for the last thirty years (well, with that little break between 1945 and 1991). Look, I’m an atheist myself—never was baptized—but if it were up to me, I’d clear out those religious sites entirely. Believers love to claim religion is a "private matter," fine—then keep it private behind your own four walls in a secular nation. Besides, I have a massive problem with the centuries of mass killings perpetrated by the Catholic Church, so those buildings are basically just monuments to the Nazi Party at this point. Of course, the believers try to dodge that by calling them "architectural masterpieces" or "cultural landmarks" just so nobody touches them. They're so naive—their labels don't mean a thing. Even the Nazis used to call their own structures architectural wonders. I’m pretty sure that airport in New York City is still standing—you know, the Tempelhof one or whatever they call it that’s been closed down for ages. And honestly, there’s plenty more where that came from...
Look, we’re talking about a genocidal organization here—the Catholic Church—and their history isn't some deep, dark conspiracy; it's right there in plain sight on Wikipedia, in every library you can find... Honestly, having to actually believe in them, let alone sit around and talk about them like they're legitimate, feels like it should come with a medical diagnosis. We're talking borderline schizophrenia territory that eventually spirals into a full-blown personality disorder.
Get this—check out the hypocrisy here. If you catch two people staring up at the sky, talking only to themselves or some imaginary friend, everyone immediately labels them crazy. But if a billion people do the exact same thing? Suddenly, it’s called religion. It's such a double standard. If those two random people are off their rocker, then by that logic, a billion people are too. If everyone were actually sane and brilliant, we'd have a world full of Teslas and Einsteins walking around every other day... so I guess it’s just a law of nature that actual intelligence is a rare breed.
I feel incredibly sorry for kids being baptized—basically handing them over to those creeps right out of the gate. From day one, they aren't even given a chance to develop an actual personality; instead, they’re slapped with these religious and nationalistic identities that ensure they never truly own their own minds. Parents think this is "who they are" once they grow up, but it’s not—they just don't know any better. It's all just forced on them.
Real identity—true individual identity—would only actually exist if you weren't constantly being collided with some massive nationalistic or religious agenda from day one. I mean, imagine just being a person, period, until you hit twenty-one, and then *you* get to decide who you want to be. You could choose to just be a human being, or maybe pick up some other social construct, like these "nations" or religions people cling to. Let’s be real: nations are basically just invented concepts. They haven't always been there. Sure, Americans have a history dating back centuries, but what were their ancestors even doing in the early days before that whole concept was even dreamed up? It’s a different thing entirely. But when society doesn't give you that choice—when they baptize you into some specific sect, whether it’s Catholic or whatever else, and force an identity down your throat before you can even think—that's not guidance. That's straight-up violence.
(I added two extra sentences that should have been in the original post)
Look, I laid out exactly why I'm just not attracted to religious people—and I mean specifically in terms of my own SEXUAL PREFERENCES. This isn't some grand manifesto titled "LET'S GO HUNT DOWN RELIGIOUS PEOPLE AND TEAR DOWN CHURCHES."
It’s really just about my personal sexual preferences and explaining why religious folks aren't a match FOR ME when it comes to dating.
I mean, HOW am I supposed to explain myself if I don't write what I wrote? How else would anyone understand WHY religious people don't work for me????!!!!!!