Your appeal to nature has nothing to do with everything else you said.

It's so far off you sound like a bot taking sentences from different arguments and slapping them together.

What this is pure female psychology on display. Women understand them selves and the world around them through the opinions of their peers and the opinions of those in charge.

This is definitely not true of the men! No way! They pop out of the womb totally self actualized.

Subjectivity and relativism are very related. The latter relies for its definition on the first. Subjectivity is a little trickier because it can refer to multiple things. When I say 'suicidal subjectivity', I'm kind of combining two worlds here, and I grant it is a bit of wordplay. The suicidal term refers to the group or society, contrasted against the subjectivity. The way I am using subjectivity is to refer to the fact that when it is on display, the person is demonstrating that they are not seeing their world in the terms of containing many individuals, but only themselves - increasingly, all actual subjectivity is being 'objectivized' from the standpoint of the one subjectivity, i.e. the world is becoming a projection of their one focal point of experience/knowing.

They don't see other individuals, but rather they only see phenomena that either are congruent with their internal state or are incongruent. As phenomena those other people are no longer persons, but are only representations of ideas existing internally within the one perceiver.

So we see there is a contradiction built into the phrase 'suicidal subjectivity'. The reason it is suicidal is precisely because the pseudo-objectivity of the person who is turning the world into mere phenomena threatens actual subjectivity, by threatening the autonomy of every other subjectivity that exists. It is suicidal because this is naturally anti-social, in fact it is the epitome of anti-social. It is pure solipsism.

I just think the phrase 'suicidal subjectivity' has a better ring to it than solipsism. 'ism's are just too stuffy.

If you're one of these types, that's enough. Now, try being a typical conservative and justifying anything by saying IT HAS BEEN THEORIZED. The same girl who tweeted this would be the first to sourcefag you. "Um, got some sources!?"

Yes. Isn't that funny?... Every single time.

Christianity was a jewish sect that took over the Roman empire a thousand years later. But the jews lost control of christianity. It was no longer their religion but some hybrid of the pagan roman religion as well. So they became hostile to it. They figured Islam was preferable to exploit.

I think Im christian in as much as 2000 years of christian regime has had an influence on my culture and DNA. But Europeans had an influence on christianity. It is not the jewish cult that Paul promoted. Christianity and white people evolved together for 2000 years.

Im concerned about throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

It wasn't that clear cut back then. In Spain, you had the Germanic Visigoths, the Basques, the local Spaniards, etc. all looking a little different and not intermarrying. Then Islam took over for like 700 years, the North Africans raped an enormous number of women, intermarried with the locals and converted many Christians to Islam to avoid the extra taxes. The concept of being white in Spain/Italy/Greece is much more dynamic than with the Anglo-Saxons. After centuries of intermixing you in many cases you couldn't tell who was who just because of their skin color. The problem persists to this day.