Some fellow (to summarize his lengthy comment) just told me that the Men's Rights Movement (MRM) has no ideology, and that the MRM is "anti-ideology," and that I don't know what ideology means, and thus I can't contribute anything to any discussion.

An ideology is "the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group." (see:

So, the MRM has no ideology? MRAs have no doctrines, no fairly common ideas, no similarly-held beliefs? The name "Men's Rights Movement" is a lie and the MRM is not a movement, the MRM is not a group comprised of individuals, many of which have highly similar beliefs and/or are against/for the same, or highly similar, things? They don't have terms that they like to use, some of which they "created" or have popularized (hypergamy, male disposability, rape hysteria, rape farming, et cetera). None of these are phrases commonly used by MRAs?

The MRM is not totally "anti-ideology" or "without an ideology," and neither are individual MRAs. The fact that so many people make these claims is proof that the propaganda of some MR organizations and MRAs has been relatively effective. The MRM is mostly against the ideologies of some other movements, groups and individuals (Feminism/Feminists, for example); no one in a movement or group with social or political beliefs or similarly shared objectives of any kind is almost entirely "anti-ideology."

Every group who fights for or against anything, by definition, shares common beliefs, doctrines, social theories and/or ideas, et cetera. They all have ideologies, the MRM has an ideology or ideologies, and MRAs have ideologies. They might be against some ideologies other than their own, but they are not entirely "anti-ideology" (because they have their own).

It is not I who misunderstands "ideology" or the MRM, it is the individual who asserted these things (whatever his name was); unless, of course, we're working with his entirely made up notions and definition of ideology. In which case, he might be right (excluding what ideology actually means and how the world really functions).

All one must do is look through MRA videos and sites, and the evidence of "ideology," by definition, can be found everywhere; as I stated above, the MRM is not "anti-ideology." MRAs have their own ideology, or ideologies, but are against the "ideologies" of some others (typically Feminists). There is a difference between being against a certain ideology, and being without one, or some, at all (which is what a general statement of "anti-ideology" implies).

All of the things stated above are both justified and true, by definition of the word "ideology" and the nature of the MRM.

Thank you all for reading; have a wonderful day!

Author: Krista [Femitheist Divine]

P.S. Although people do often argue that the MRM "has no ideology" or "is not ideological," what the individual that this post refers to stated specifically was that the MRM is "almost entirely anti-ideological." What he fails to realize is that he was arguing that the MRM is against what it considers the "status quo," which is not the same as being "anti-ideology" or "almost entirely anti-ideological." The MRM has ideology, MRAs have ideologies, and some or many of them are just as susceptible to group-think insularity and myopia or narrow-mindedness as nearly every other collective/movement (all of this was somewhat aside from my criticisms anyway; my critiques were of what I considered harmful rhetoric or actions/statements, or things that seemed like they could be undertaken or carried out in a better way, and so forth).

P.P.S Additionally, the individual stated that, if the MRM were ever to gain my "approval," that would be indicative of things going terribly wrong with the movement. However, just as I do not dislike everything that Feminism does (only some things), I also do not hate everything that the MRM does, or that MRAs do, and I already approve of some of it, and of several MR organizations (Intact America, for instance, which supports men's rights but is not necessarily "MRM," I like quite a bit). Most of my MRA-related issues stem from AVoiceforMen and its activities, and the actions and words of a few MRAs on the internet. I am not black-and-white opposed to the MRM, or to Feminism.

Since my site has a lot of newcomers right now, I thought that I'd take a moment to go through some of the things that I've seen since the interview from VICE went live. I am pleased to say that I have received quite a few sound and decent objections to my statements from the interview (despite the mistakes that VICE accidentally made regarding some of my views, and the missing portions from my answers). That is what I always hope for when any sort of opportunity like this arises; constructive, or at least useful, criticisms. Many, of course, have been irrelevant, silly, straw-manning, or I've already accounted for/debunked them in my book notes, but there have also been some great ones too.

I'm going to go through a list of items in this post to reiterate a few things that I've stated in the past.

NOTE: To see what mistakes VICE made in their article, click

They have mostly corrected some of the major ones (not entirely, but mostly).

1) "You will never succeed; what you hope for will never come to fruition."
There is no true "failure" for me. I consider it not my loss, but the loss of all others, if people reject my offerings. Whether folks interpret what I write and state (to use other people's phrasings) as figurative, literal, or as works of fiction or serious proposals is irrelevant to me; so long as people are thinking about all of it (which many are), that is satisfactory. I will continue to advocate what I advocate, and as I've stated before, as long as I give everything my very greatest effort, I will be entirely pleased in the end.

2) Everyone and everything benefits me.

As the point suggests, many people have several opinions about how to deal with my supporters and I, and in truth, everything that everyone does benefits me in its own way. I know this now because I have been doing this for over 2 years and have seen how things play out (almost the same way each time; this time will be no exception).

I: Taking me seriously - This strengthens the resolve of my supporters, brings me many new supporters, and lends even more legitimacy to my ideas and mission.

II: Mocking me - This strengthens the resolve of my supporters, brings me many new supporters, and garners me support from people who were on the fence about me, because I take mockery well and those that mock me tend to be extremely hateful and belligerent about it (even when they're not, the outcome is relatively the same).

III: Ignoring me - This is one of the best things that people attempt, because the only folks who ignore me are those that hate me. Individuals who like me and my ideas are retained, and because of how much my messages have been spread now (sphere of influence), I continue to gain new friends, allies and fans, while those who ignore me do nothing to counteract that.

IV: Deeming me a troll - Due to how many (to use other people's phrasings) lengthy, thoroughly researched, and well-written pieces I've done, this is typically rejected full-stop by my supporters and friends. And, it also works to my benefit in the same way that III does, because it enables me and allows me to continue while those that hate me ignore me and shrug me off.

V: Misrepresenting me - This is the most harmful thing that people attempt, in truth, and it happens often, but it also lends legitimacy to the idea that my detractors are not intellectually honest or objective. In that way, it benefits me similarly to how I does.

VI: Providing me with valid criticisms - This is my favorite one of all. People see it as "debating" or "refuting" me, but that is not what it serves to do, because I do not engage in pointless debates that do not benefit me (they tend to be circular). I engage only in civil and productive discussions, and am not very social. Giving me valid criticisms helps me to further refine my ideas and debunk objections; so when you leave me a constructive critique, you are actually helping me out in the greatest possible way. Ergo, I would greatly appreciate many more of them.

a. Most criticisms lobbed at me are either based on misunderstandings related to my views, or they're irrelevant, silly or straw-manning. If I've already debunked a critique in my book notes, I ignore it (keep in mind that I have been at this for about 2 years, and what I'm advocating isn't exactly an easy sell, which means that I have to be extremely thorough).

b. The recent VICE article on me was only about 30-40% of the total interview, and they only used about 1/4 of each of my answers (many were greatly condensed or abbreviated in order to save on length), and thus, most objections to a lot of what I said were already accounted for in my original, full answers, or are already accounted for in my book notes.

c. I have had 2 years to think about and write on all of this, so 98% of the time, when someone asks if I haven't thought of something, or when someone uses something simple as a critique, I have already accounted for that prior, rendering the criticism null. I keep every objection that I find for my book notes and debunk them as time goes on, refining all of my ideas and concepts when valid responses arise. There have been many objections, and that has always been of great value to me. Again, as I said, keep them coming. It's easily the best way for me to fine-tune and improve my ideas (which will eventually be displayed in entirety when my book is complete).

d. Feel free to send me an orderly list of all of your objections to everything that I have ever said via email (

VII: Supporting me - This one is self-explanatory (obviously beneficial to me).

So, all of the above are essentially ways that you can help me if you desire (not directly asking, just extending a few suggestions). With the position that I'm in at the moment, there's really nothing that anyone can do that wouldn't benefit me in some way. I am now where I anticipated that I would be 2 years ago, meaning that I have lost detractors and gained many new friends, and continue to gain new and great friends every day, and so I am satisfied with that.

There's still a long ways to go, though, and I look forward to it.

3) "Dox her; report her; censor her!"

All of these things have been tried countless times over the past 2 years, and each attempt has failed, only resulting in strengthening the resolve of my fans and friends and garnering me more overall support. If you're thinking of doing any of this, you'll be wasting your time, and you're only going to benefit me in the long-run. Nothing can be considered now which could make me "go away" that hasn't been done already by hundreds of people before. I will continue doing what I have always done, and try as people might to "get rid of me," their attempts will continue to be in vain.

4) "She just does this for the money."

This has already been thoroughly debunked; I do have an optional donation link, but hardly anyone donates to me. I have no ads on my site or videos, and I won't be charging anything for my book with the intention of personally profiting monetarily. I have worked almost alone for essentially everything that I have right now in life, quite hard (as my friends will attest), but I care very little about money beyond viewing it as a necessary means of survival, and I certainly do not care about making it from any of my mission-related work. I don't really need a lot more money than I have right now.

5) "She just does this for attention."

This is actually a strange and somewhat silly accusation (rather obtuse even); like everyone who writes posts and makes videos, I hope that people will see my work, but I also do all that I do because I care about it. I have put a lot of time and effort into what I've done, and I've also sacrificed a fair amount by bringing the hatred of hundreds or thousands of people to me. There are far easier (and safer) ways to obtain simple "attention" than what I do, more "mainstream" or outrageous things that could be said that would be a lot more successful than what I do in terms of garnering "attention," and so the allegation truly doesn't pan out in the way that it's intended.

As most of my friends and fans will tell anyone who asks, I have spent (cumulatively) hours, days and months editing videos, researching, writing, et cetera, and so, demonstrably, I deserve about as much attention as the next person in my position. There are people far above me in terms of popularity who do quite a bit less.

Unless people want to assert that I am the only person who writes posts or edits videos in hopes that other people will see them, this point is invalid and petty as a criticism. And, as I said above, I spend hours and days collectively over months editing, researching and writing. I could've merely pretended to believe in things that would've made me a lot more popular than I am right now (considering the quality of work that I do), and most people would've loved me, or would love me now, but instead I chose to fight for what I believe in and know is right.

People seem to forget that I was doing almost exactly what I do now before I had any friends or supporters, for many months, in fact. Whether I have one, ten or ten-thousand viewers, I will continue to do what I do now for all time.

The thing that people fail to understand is, I am not a troll or provocateur; I am simply someone who is speaking and fighting for what they truly believe in. I consider myself an observer, not a participant, and an architect, not an activist. And, I always strive to maintain fair civility, reason and understanding, even in the face of irrationality and animosity.

I will be more than happy, as I noted here, to have civil and meaningful discussions with anyone who is interested, and I will reply as best and as often as I can. For those who are interested, feel free to stick around.

And please, keep the objections coming, but just be sure to try to make them instructive, constructive and comprehensive, because those are the kinds of critiques that are the most conducive to my work.

Thank you all for reading.

Author: Krista [Femitheist Divine]

NOTE II: Might add more to this post later.

NOTE III: As a reminder, any profile or page not listed on this site or my YouTube channel does not belong to me.

Social Links:
YouTube (Subscribe)
Twitter (Follow)
Google+ (Follow)
Facebook (Like)

Some Assorted Works to View:

Post 1 | Post 2 | Post 3 | Post 4 | Post 5 | Post 6

Video 1 | Video 2 | Video 3 | Video 4 | Video 5

New Video:

Well, as I anticipated, there's a lot of misguided attacking taking place right now (which is fine, I am used to that). I'm sure if you're reading this today (8/14/14), there's at least a 50% chance that you've come from VICE's recent article on me, and so you can go here to see my corrections for their piece (they made a few mistakes).

Instead of just waiting until this wave of angry folks passes as I normally do, I'd like to attempt to channel a bit of this negativity into something productive and useful, and the only way that I can do that is through direct and prolonged interaction with a few of you (if you are one of the newcomers that I made reference to above). Everyone won't grow to like me, of course, but hopefully I can talk to some of you that are replying to me now and become better acquainted with you. It'd be nice to have civil discussions instead of just experiencing the rage-storm in passing.

Here are the links to my social media profiles, where I am most active: [Subscribe] - Prolonged content and interaction. [Follow] - Frequent interaction (almost daily). [Follow] - Frequent interaction and content (post here a lot). [Like] - Purely major content updates; little interaction (I don't operate it).

I've gone through this sort of thing about five times now, and I've never tried to capitalize on the opportunities in the sense of actually reaching out to the people who come to me with angry objections, some of which are valid complaints (that I will account for). I typically don't attempt this sort of thing because people come like this in large groups, and as one person alone, I can't reply to everyone as much as I, or they, would like.

However, if you follow me on all/some of the profiles above, where I am most active, then we can hopefully become better acquainted and have some interesting and mutually-beneficial conversations. I can't converse all the time, or with everyone constantly (because I am fairly busy), but I will do my best.

Additionally, you can also follow me on this site (where my most serious work is done) by following my posts via email, or by signing up as a member to the site. Either of these things can be done by clicking "Show Post Archive [+]" on the homepage. The options will come up after that is clicked.

I look forward to interacting with whoever among you decides to remain.

Author: Krista [Femitheist Divine]

NOTE: I will eventually remove this post, but while people are around and still flooding in, I figured that I'd give diplomacy a shot instead of just doing little with it as I normally do.

NOTE II: You can also contact me at, but my inbox was already overloaded before the VICE article went up, and now even more so, and so the odds of me replying there at the moment are less than in other places. Private messages on YouTube are entirely acceptable as well.

Welcome, All Newcomers: Click Here

Social Links:
YouTube (Subscribe)
Twitter (Follow)
Google+ (Follow)
Facebook (Like)

Some Assorted Works to View:

Post 1 | Post 2 | Post 3 | Post 4 | Post 5 | Post 6

Video 1 | Video 2 | Video 3 | Video 4 | Video 5

New Video:

UPDATE: Since I posted this, VICE has corrected some of the mistakes that they made regarding my views (that was supposed to happen before their article was published, but there was some confusion). Not all of the things below were corrected for in their piece, of course, and the article is still only about 1/3 of all of my answers, but I greatly appreciate that they made the corrections and thank them sincerely nonetheless.


Although I thank Toby for being a gracious interviewer (and hope that this corrections-post won't offend), the recent article on me from
VICE did misrepresent a few things (with some inaccurate corrections), and even took a couple of my answers out of context, or left out context essential to their meanings. I don't believe that any of that was done maliciously, but just in error.

The piece written by VICE used about 1/3 of my total answers, and only about 1/3 of each actual answer (I assume that this is for a length requirement, and so I've really got no qualms there), but I am going to clarify on a few of the more erroneous things here so that people aren't misinformed on my views. You'll notice that some things stated about me in the article seem to conflict with my answers, and that is because they got a few details wrong.

NOTE: Keep in mind that the questions shown in the article are not the same questions that I was asked while being interviewed (they changed them for flow, I assume), and the punctuation-style and British English style of spelling were done by them, not me (e.g., I said “the math has,” not “the maths has”). Some of the questions were similar, but they were not all the same ones.

Problem 1: “Her argument was, although she no longer prescribes to it, that only through mass public castration and the reduction of the male population to between 1 and 10 percent of their current number we can approach 'true equality'. According to her, testosterone (and by dangling extension testicles) 'are the primary cause of their violent behavior.'”

My argument was actually never really that mass castrations should be performed, because ICD was a non-serious piece. My FAQ has stated this for quite some time, and so have I (I don't advocate castration, and even donated to an Anti-Circumcision charity and wrote a piece against circumcision/MGM recently), and I also stated as much in the original interview.

This was the original exchange regarding ICD:
Q: Hi Femitheist. So, International Castration Day. I’m a guy, by the way. That bother you?

A: No. I completed that post in about five minutes or less. It was merely an expression of some brief anger. I took quite some time to finally drop it entirely because, despite never truly advocating it as an ‘actual solution’ for anything, I attracted several supporters who genuinely adored the idea, and I was afraid of losing their support. But I now have numerous terrific friends and supporters, and they simply love me as a person and don’t care what I do or don’t espouse, for the most part, and so that type of fear-of-loss has vanished. Just to make it clear, I was never serious about that post. It’s still something that comes up frequently and the recurrence of its mention has become monotonous, which is why I’ve urged people in the past to stop discussing it, because it’s a dead issue.

Q: Yet you still maintain the male population should be reduced to 1 – 10%. Why would this be “better for the human race,” as you put it?

A: I believe that ‘conventional equality,’ with a 50:50, female-to-male ratio, is an innately inferior system and way of doing things. Essentially, my ideas lead to men being made a special class, a far more valued class, having choice of myriad women due to the difference in sex-ratio. That is my intention. Men would be made more valuable, and their quality-of-life would be dramatically improved. They would have a subsidised existence, if you will; akin to going on an all-expenses paid vacation that lasts from birth to death.

I do still prescribe the pop-red, but ICD was never a serious bit, and still isn't.

Problem 2: “According to her, testosterone (and by dangling extension testicles) 'are the primary cause of their violent behavior.'”

This one comes (I believe) from the ICD post, but no question about testosterone came up in the interview, and I had told them prior to the article being published that the things in the ICD post were not serious. Likewise, this contradicts comments that I've made and even my FAQ, which states the following (because I am often asked this):

Q: “Do you believe that testosterone causes aggression or violent behavior?”

A: No (or at least not alone). Many studies have shown that higher levels of testosterone do not necessarily lead to more aggressive behaviors. There is still much research that needs to be done in this area before any absolute conclusions can be drawn, but for the time being, my answer is no.

So, in other words, that is actually not “according to me.”

Problem 3: “Some would argue it would be a dystopian world because it wouldn't be free in the present conventional sense. However that is misguided. It will be utopian because it will be a world almost without conflict where people cooperate and are treated properly within a well-engineered and long-forged system. If everything is great for almost everyone the point is null. Survival and socio-organic wellbeing are the most important elements in life. Diversity of principles and standards is only necessary in a world of multiple nations, cultures, societies, and religions due to fear of oppression. So, how is this world any better? Because some people have potential opportunities to do certain things?”

All of my responses were shortened to about 1/3 or 1/4, but their abbreviated version of my response above leaves out a bit of important context, and without the following context, the questions that I asked at the end seem sort of abrupt and out of place.

My actual answer to the question regarding ambitions was:

“Some would argue that it would be a ‘dystopian world’ because it wouldn't be ‘free’ in the present conventional sense.

However, that is incorrect/misguided; it will be eutopian (eutopia = good place, utopia = no place), because it would be a world almost without conflict, where people cooperate and are treated properly within a well-engineered and long-forged system. If everything is great for almost everyone, then the point is null.

Survival and socio-organic well-being are the most important elements in the processes of life. Diversity of principles and standards is only necessary in a world of multiple nations, cultures, societies, religions, and so forth, due to fear of potential ‘oppression.’ Unification and amalgamation are the keys to eutopia and prolonged/superior survival; or, a system wherein no true or widespread ‘oppression’ can arise or occur.

If one takes into consideration all of the elements of my future projected-world, without viewing each facet merely through a modern cultural lens, one will realize that such modern ambitions tend to be unnecessary (a product of today's system), and even in today's system, millions frequently fail to achieve the majority of their ambitions.

So, how is this world any better? Because some people have potential opportunities to do certain things (that are almost required for survival in this world)?

Nonsense. Even in this system, there is a great disparity in the availability of such supposed life-opportunities, and that is coupled with an immense lack of the benefits that I propose for men. This system's norms are an inferior way of doing things.

The purpose of living is merely to persist and perpetuate our species, and if someone is willing to give you all that you will require to survive and live comfortable, simply because you exist, then you have already achieved all that truly matters.”

And as an aside: yes, I draw a distinction between “eutopia” and “utopia,” and prefer the former because it is more accurate in terms of what I discuss and propose. They changed my spelling to the latter.

Problem 4: “Q: But don’t men have value beyond breeding?
A: If technology has not advanced to a point where labour can be done without men, the few men that are necessary for said labour will be allowed to work on the outside of the reservations to complete whatever tasks necessary—if they wish.”

This question above is not the question that I was asked where that came up, and it sort of positions my statement as if I had implied that manual labor is men's only other value, or as if it was the first thing that I thought of.

Problem 4.5: “Q: Like slaves?
A: Not as slaves, simply as workers performing a duty, in the same way workers today do. Only without the need for monetary reimbursement as they would have no need for such a thing. This would be highly monitored and regulated.”

The “like slaves?” question from the article was not actually posed to me in the interview; it was set up in VICE's piece that way to take that part of my reply out of the context of the original answer. The following question and response shows everything in full (with the original question that I was replying to).

The original exchange:

Q: “OK, so, would the men be kept in isolation like stud horses?”

A: I seek to create a dual-tier society; not a bottom-and-top society, but one in which the two sexes live as different and parallel halves, neither beneath or above one another, but with their own divorced contexts and circumstances.

I believe that we must remove men from the community, and place them in their own specific sections of society, akin to subsidized or state-owned and funded reservations, so that they can be redefined and, with them, the rest of the world. We can make not only men safer, but women as well. And, by subsidizing said reservations through the state, we can provide men with activities, healthcare, entertainment, shelter, protection, and everything that one could ever require in life.

This will remove all forms of conventional inequality from society. By reducing the number of men to ten percent of the total population, their sociobio value will be raised. They will live out their lives there happily and safely, and “male disposability” will be a thing of the past.

And, if by this time, technology has not advanced to a point where labor can be done without men (which is highly unlikely given the realistic time-frame), the few men that are necessary for said labor will be allowed to work on the outside of the reservations to complete whatever tasks are necessary (if they wish). Not as slaves, but simply as workers performing a duty, in the same way that the workers of today do, only without the need for monetary reimbursement, as they would have no need for such a thing. This, too, of course, would be highly monitored and regulated.

I wasn't implying there that being able to perform manual labor is men's only other value (that question was a part of the article, but in the interview exchange, it was not in the context that the article portrays it as).

And, what I described in terms of labor is not what a “slave” is; I specifically stated that the work would be voluntary. Slaves, by definition, are forced to work. The work being entirely voluntary directly negates all concepts of labor “slavery.”

Problem 5: “After posting it on YouTube she stepped out for a coffee. Returning home a few hours later, she found that all gnashing male hell had broken loose.”

This is actually not what I stated happened; I said that I posted it to my blog, made a text video which I posted to YouTube, and then I went to sleep (that was what I told him). When I woke up the next day, it had been hyper-shared over the night. I didn't “step out for a coffee” (although I suppose that sounds more sophisticated than simply going to bed).


The title of the article is misleading and also grammatically incorrect (but the latter is irrelevant to this); I don't believe that the pop-red will solve everything. There are many problems in this world that stem from things aside from that which would require, obviously, other solutions. Even with the reduction, there would be many problems to solve, which is why that is only going to be a small part of what my book covers. I also never stated that it would solve every problem (or “everything,” as they put it), because it won't. It's a solution that I prescribe for some issues, but not for all of them.

As I mentioned at the beginning of this post, many questions that I answered (some which I wish could've made it in) were not included, and the questions portrayed in the article are not the exact questions that I was asked (although some of the context is still fairly matching). Likewise, about 2/3 or 3/4 of my answers were left out, which is reasonable when the overall meaning is kept if they've got a length requirement, but for a couple of them there was vital context missing, or they were presented in an improper context.

Essentially, and just to be clear, VICE's article contains only about 30-40% of the total interview; most of it was not about the 90:10 ratio, but that was the focus of their piece. Many criticisms of my statements, which have come since their post was published, stem from the fact that they abbreviated my answers in the article and misrepresented some of my views. I accounted for essentially every objection to my responses that I've seen this far in my full/original replies. This outcome is what happens when interview answers are condensed and stripped of some context (confusion and irrelevant rebuttals).

I don't want to bother VICE too much about these corrections (even if some of them could've been avoided by actually portraying what I said in my original answers), and I thank Toby again for the interview and his cooperative kindness, but I felt that these clarifications had to be stated quickly so that I'm not forced to combat misinformation forever.

If anyone ever wants to see the entirety of my answers, they'll all be available when I finish my book, because it will cover everything in full; and, if you dislike or oppose my true answers and views, be sure that you are opposing my actual perspectives, and not accidental misrepresentations or falsehoods.

All objections henceforth will be used to assist me in further refining and building my ideas.

Thank you all for reading.

Author: Krista [Femitheist Divine]

Social Links:
YouTube (Subscribe)
Twitter (Follow)
Google+ (Follow)
Facebook (Like)

Temporary Additional Post: Click Here

Welcome, All Newcomers: Click Here

Some Assorted Works to View:

Post 1 | Post 2 | Post 3 | Post 4 | Post 5 | Post 6

Video 1 | Video 2 | Video 3 | Video 4 | Video 5

New Video:

NOTE: Recently, I had a discussion which stemmed from something that I stated on Twitter, related to theology and science (the talk with this person went further than that); at first I considered writing a post on these topics, but then I figured that it'd be fun, since a lot of my friends are into this sort of thing, and just to lend some structural variety to my site, to simply re-post the responses here in their regular “conversational” format. The other person's replies are in the black quote-boxes, and mine are the normal black-on-white text. The only modification that I've made to the messages is reformatting them for this post. It begins with the person quoting what I said on Twitter.

NOTE II: The “studying” disagreement was sort of a subset of the rest of the conversation, and kind of silly.
“Faith and reason can be compatible, but theology and science are different categories of study. Mixing the latter two is just hocus pocus.”



It's no different from “studying” philosophy.

Yeah it is. Because most philosophies don't pretend magic exists.

Except for the whole classical basis of Western philosophy; Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, et cetera, all believed in the existence of souls. And, one can study anything.

But their philosophies weren't ABOUT souls. Lol. Theology is ALL ABOUT magic.

Furthermore, “magic” is not a belief.

"You can study anything"

So I can study unicorns?

Even though, you know...


They're fictional?

That's retarded.

No, it isn’t.

You can't study something that doesn't exist.

Plato/Socrates justified the entirety of their philosophies based on the soul. Have you read them?

Are you asserting that you can't study fictional things?

Should we just burn down all of the English and other language literature departments?

How is English fictional?


Do you know what “study” means?

“The devotion of time and attention to acquiring knowledge on an academic subject.”

And, also: “A detailed investigation and analysis of a subject or situation.”

Unicorns are not an academic subject.

So you can't study them.

Case fucking closed.

Says who? That's arbitrary and classist. You can investigate and analyze information regarding unicorns, even if fictional. In fact, I would be well within the bounds of “studying” if I were to pick up a book about unicorns written by a sociologist interested in the various cultural interpretations of them. To claim otherwise is just silly.

That's studying fiction about unicorns, not studying the unicorns themselves.

That's impossible, because they don't exist.

A minor distinction; philosophy is not concerned with the ephemeral make-up of souls, nor is theology trying to analyze pieces of God. Theologians don't, generally, sit, pray, and then write what they claim God said to them. They read what other theologians have written on the various topics of theology, and write on them; analysis of the consequences of various moral assertions, et cetera. Even if you think that it's nonsense, they are still doing theology.

Theology is all about reading religious scriptures and then pretending to have a revelation, like the guy who invented Mormonism. Lol. I also think it's pointless to study morals or ethics since no amount of study will ever change anyone's mind but your own, so it amounts to a gigantic waste of time.

You're wrong; that’s propheteering.

Brigham Young or whoever, right or wrong, was not a theologian. He was a religious figure; a founder.

The ontological argument was a 'revelation' had by Thomas Aquinas.

He just kind of came up with it.

Theologians would be Mormons studying whatever he said.

That's how abstract ideas are formed.

It wasn't based on some scientifically justifiable fact or logically sound argument, he just sort of made it up.

“I came up with it; thanks God.”

And that's what theology is all about.

Making shit up.

So's writing, so's philosophy.

Philosophy is frequently founded on principles of logic.

Like souls?

Plato, Socrates?

Again, have you read them?


It was their foundational topic.

The first conceptualization of the Atom was invented by a Greek philosopher.

Yeah, and their foundation was obviously flawed, that doesn't mean everything they ever said was wrong.

Which I've never claimed, but thank you for clarifying that you aren't either.

There was plenty of other shit that the ancient Greeks came up with that was way more important than the concept of the soul, Krista.

The achievements of pederasts are secondary to this discussion. Logic is a mechanism. It's not a “foundation.” Logic requires axioms and base principles and epistemic allowances.

Which were followed by the ancient Greeks since, you know, they fucking invented it.

Axioms aren't followed; you have to come up with them, which the Greeks did, as you say.

They made shit up, happened to hit on the mark, and that's why we don't read about the scribblings of, uh... The Slavs.

In any case, you seem to have some sort of obsessively held conception that studying must be focused on extant topics. Merely by pointing out the plethora of abstract concepts that are out there, it would seem that your conception is a misconception.


The axioms that the ancient Greeks came up with were wrong some of the time obviously and a lot of it was just dumb luck. BUT. That doesn't mean the foundation of logic and reason they constructed can't be applied to axioms derived from the scientific method. That is what modern 'philosophy' is. UNLESS it's religious philosophy.

>deciding what philosophy of any kind is


In which case it's based on made up shit.

Aren’t you also a relativist?

Hence why theology is a joke.

Oh sorry, moral nihilist, was it?

Not that I disagree with that, in particular, but consistency.

Lol, what do you think Hobbesian philosophy is based on? It's based on fucking Evolution, which is a scientific theory, not a philosophical one. A lot of modern philosophy is based on science, not just random bullshit that people pulled out of their asses.

Hobbes believed in natural law, as the concept the medievals and ancients discussed, that was written into human nature.

He believed in survival of the fittest, which is a Darwinian concept, Krista. Lol.

That's also two centuries before Evolution.

He didn't have a scientific framework to back his philosophy. That doesn't mean his ideas were completely fabricated. Survival of the fittest was common sense until somebody came along and explained how it fit into the grand scheme of natural evolution. 

I wouldn't say that he believed in survival of the fittest. You've read the Leviathan, no? Part of the point of social cooperation is that the “fittest” (the strongest, fastest, and smartest people) will have no advantage in a state of nature's all-out war.

Yeah, because of numbers.

Everyone sleeps, he said.

Because they will be outnumbered by the less fit. I just don't see how you can say…

Which means that they won't survive to pass on their genes.

How I can say?

What do you think that the point of what I am trying to tell you is?

Theology, which is based ENTIRELY on conjecture and has absolutely no basis in reality.

Because all of this has been secondary; if not for the Western cultural obsession with science vs. religion, theology would, I think, be able to work with sociology and psychology. My thoughts on religion, in and of itself, are different.

I just don't see how you can reconcile theology with modern science and philosophy.

When we have ideas based on actual scientific facts, instead of made up bullshit about God.

You continue to lump “modern philosophy,” which no one actually agrees on, as something based on scientific facts. Facts are not the general domain of philosophy. Philosophy is primarily about abstractions, much like theology, but is focused on questions rather than directions.

A lot of it -is-. Modern as in, written within the past century. Philosophy is about answering those questions. Lol. And how do you do that? You apply the scientific method to whatever your question is related to.

Like Sartre? Wilfrid Sellars? De Beauvoir? I've not been seeing citations to "scientific facts" in their works.

Actually I guess modern philosophy would be, written since the 1700s.

But, what about the rationalists? Do they not count for some reason?


I've read them.

Are you trying.

Are you trying to fucking


that Descartes

worked with facts?


They tried to base their philosophies on reproducable logic and rationale, hence why they are called “rationalists”. Just because Descartes was kind of a loony…




You've undermin-

I'm done with you; you've sunk your ship, cap'n.

Like Descartes and his demon, them facts?

Hey. Things were different back in the day.

The very opening of Descartes' big work, whatever it’s called, is him describing how he locked himself in a room and came up with shit. He was determined to abandon all preconceptions that he could in doing so (i.e., he set out to specifically talk out of his ass).

Descartes was all about regarding reason as the chief source of knowledge. That was my entire point. Lol. As opposed to AQUINAS who thought that knowledge came from the fucking divine.

Yes, reason as opposed to facts that you can perceive from the world, nice try.

It's still better than hallucinating that you're receiving knowledge from a deity?



And, also, some of the medieval thought on “knowledge from the divine” isn't as propheteering as you imply.

It's literally "God told me this” or “I acquired this knowledge by the grace of God”.

Perhaps it was Boethius, not sure, maybe Aquinas, but “knowledge coming from God” does not mean, for every thinker, “God told me this” or “I acquired this knowledge by the grace of God.”

Aquinas thought you could prove God's existence based on the fact that the world has order to it. And he claimed that this knowledge came from God, that's how he convinced people. Like, wtf?

Do we agree that one can study anything, because I feel as though that is vital to the conclusion of this discussion.

No, that's fucking dumb. You can't 'study' a non-academic subject unless you mean 'study' as in scrutinize.

Learn about.

But that's a separate definition.

Studying is learning about something; concluding in the intake of information on a subject and retaining it.

Sorry, but that's not what studying means.

Anyway, as I was going to say earlier; whoever it is, I'm trying to remember, pondered whether all knowledge exists independently of our coming to know it. Of course, only God would be holding onto it, but the point remains that he was stating that knowledge that comes from God is just tapping into the universe's repertoire of truth. For instance, astronomical knowledge would “come from God” because it's assessing some physical truth about the universe that was previously known.

Studying is specifically about academic things.

And, who are you to decide what studying means?

Uh, it's not me that decided this.

Are you kidding me?

“Devote time and attention to acquiring knowledge on (an academic subject), especially by means of books.”

It's whoever writes the Oxford dictionary. Sorry?

What is an academic subject? Are you qualified to determine that? People study non-academic things all the time anyway. Also, note the specification of “books.” Outdated terminology.

“The activity or process of learning about something by reading, memorizing facts, attending school, etc.” - Merriam Webster. And, consider definition 2: “Look at closely in order to observe or read.” Or: “Application of the mind to the acquisition of knowledge, as by reading, investigation, or reflection.”

One can study anything.

I refuse to acknowledge theology as a valid academic field, Krista. :[

Your vaunted “modern philosophy” has trouble agreeing on what knowledge is and who's qualified to say what is known. That's epistemology for you. And, saying that one can't study non-academic things is honestly just nonsensical, because people do it all the time.

People receive money in many prestigious places to “study theology.” Sorry, but even this world disagrees with you.

From whom? Other zany evangelists?

Their universities that employ them?

So, old WASPs.

Georgetown is a Catholic school, sir.

And, that was essentially the conclusion of this discussion; not normally the sort of talk that I'd engage in, but it was fun this time, and given the interest of some of my friends and acquaintances in these subjects, I decided to post this here for the hell of it. Feel free to leave your thoughts in the comments below.

Thank you all for reading.

Author: Krista [Femitheist Divine]

WARNING: Post contains potentially disturbing images.

UPDATE #5 (July 30, 2014 - Video of the Incident Released):

Click Here

The incident appears to have been a case of police carelessness and excessive force; this is what happens when overzealous officers thrash people around unnecessarily.

UPDATE #4 (July 27, 2014): 

The jailer, Darius Porter, has been fired; however, there are two others (arresting officer Clint Webb, who threatened Jason), and another jailer who helped transport/restrain Jason (et cetera). From here, we would like the following.

1) To have some action taken against Clint Webb and the other jailer (removal from the department or reasonably appropriate disciplinary action of some kind).

2) Assistance with Jason's medical bills (which amount to, currently, $4,500); he has suffered damage to the sight of one of his eyes, has a concussion, and is going to be checked for brain damage soon. Mr. Bishop is homeless currently and cannot afford these bills, nor could he afford to pay the ticket (which they knew).

[✓] 3) Release the video of the incident to certify the department's claims that he was only thrown to the ground and not struck in the face. Given the severity of his facial injuries, it seems highly unlikely that he wasn't struck in the face, and so releasing the video would serve to answer the remaining questions regarding the department's honesty and integrity.

Firing a jailer does not heal a person's eyesight or pay for medical bills incurred because of said jailer, nor does it prove that the department reported the entire truth of what took place.

More updates will be posted as time goes on.

UPDATE #3 (July 26, 2014 - From the Facebook [23rd]): 
"The Police Department initiated the investigation based on a review of the use of force report and video of the incident in the jail. The jail employee is currently on Administrative Leave pending the outcome of the investigation. Several social media posts have implicated the arresting officer as being involved in the injuries to the prisoner. This information is incorrect - the arresting officer was not involved with the incident in the jail."


UPDATE #2 (July 24, 2014): Click Here

UPDATE #1 (July 23, 2014): Click Here (Jailer placed on "Administrative Leave" over incident.)

Original Post Text (July 22, 2014):

"On July 19, 2014 at approximately 2:20am, Denton citizen Jason Wayne Bishop (Pooh), 38, was brutally attacked by Denton, Texas police while in custody for possession of alcohol and public intoxication.

While being beaten, he did not—could not—fight back. He was both restrained and intoxicated, making him unable to defend himself during the incident."

We are calling for an investigation of the Denton city police. Please help us spread the message.

Share this story and help us get justice for Jason.

Facebook Page Mission Statement:

"What we want is a full and impartial investigation into the brutal beating of Jason Wayne Bishop (AKA Pooh) by the Denton Police Department. The delivery should be conducted by third party without the blue wall of silence. We make these demands by any and all means available."


I believe that we can all agree, regardless of levels of intoxication, that beating someone this badly is absolutely unacceptable, a disgustingly gratuitous display of brutality, and a grievous abuse of power; no officers or guards of any kind should be allowed to continue holding their jobs after recklessly thrashing someone in this way.

Please contact those operating the social network pages on Jason's behalf for more information on this story, and aid them in their cause; injustices of this sort should not go without rebuke or consequences for those who carry them out.

I have witnessed firsthand that campaigns of this nature can be quite effective in achieving justice for those wronged by figures of authority, and can even lead to helping others beyond the victim of the original misdeeds. I would encourage everyone to take a look at all of these pages and spread this story; do whatever you can to assist if you are able.

Thank you all for reading.

Author: Krista [Femitheist Divine]

Ways to help (from the Facebook page):

• SHARE OUR POSTS, PICTURES, AND INFORMATION ONLINE: When your share our content, more people will be exposed to it, and are likely to take action.

• CONNECT WITH US ON SOCIAL MEDIA: Please follow us on twitter and tumblr, subscribe to our youtube page, and like us on facebook to see more updates about this campaign. When you connect with us, it boosts our trends so that more people can see what we post (in other words, it helps us gain followers).

• SUBMIT VIDEOS TO OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL: Create a video(s) discussing this tragic incident, or why you oppose police violence/want the Denton city police to be investigated and send it to us for uploading. You can send your videos to

• WRITE ABOUT THIS: If you're a writer, and you are given a platform to express your views or expose information, please help us by writing about this situation to give it more light.

• INVITE FRIENDS TO THIS EVENT: Invite your friends and family to this event so they can see this too. We need as much help as possible, and there is strength in numbers.

• TREND OUR HASHTAGS ON TWITTER: #WeAreJason, #WeArePooh, #FuckPoliceBrutality, #JusticeForPooh, #JusticeForDenton, #InvestigateDentonPD, #DentonPDabuse.

• CALL/SUBMIT REPORTS ABOUT/FAX DENTON CITY POLICE AND COMPLAIN: You can submit complaints online here: or call/fax the Denton city police at:

~ 940-349-7923 (Chief of Police)
~ 940-349-7973 (Records)
~ 940-349-8160 (Media Relations)

• CONFRONT DENTON CITY POLICE ON SOCIAL MEDIA: Blow up their interactions and notifications online by tweeting or acknowledging them multiple times. Even it the block or ban you, you can still post about it, and use the hashtag #DentonPD and #DentonPDabuse. They are on facebook [], twitter [], and youtube [].

• MAKE THESE IMAGES YOUR COVER PHOTO OR PROFILE PICTURE: /Covers/ [], [], []. /Profile Pictures/ [], [], [], []. (You can also use a picture saying #StandWithJason, or #JusticeForJason to express your support.)

There are many ways you can stand in solidarity with this victim of gross police violence. Please help us spread the message, so we can get #JusticeForJason.

Interview with Jason (from the Facebook page):

Other Pages:

My Video on This: