Oh goody: even MORE “N.A.L.T” turd-polishing:

I genuinely love it when (semi)reasonable “Christians” attempt to do the “middle of the road” thing.  The whole thing just stinks of desperation and panic at the undeniable fact that Fundies – hell, anybody who attempts to take the bible literally – is going to end up making “Christianity” look stupid/crazy,

Don’t get me wrong: as compared to Fundies, they’re somewhat less harmful (in the sense that punshing oneself in head is “less harmful” than self-inflicted trepanation  with an electric drill.


Anyway – on the turd-polishing:

All the same, here are three logical consequences that follow from the fundamental teachings of young-earth creationism, and a few reasons it deserves to be a theological punching bag for once.

No. 1: God is a liar. The Bible says, “God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind.” And yet, at the heart of young-earth creationism lies a deceptive God, a deity who appears to have far more in common with the trickster Loki than the savior I’ve come to know.

The Vredefort crater in South Africa is the largest confirmed impact crater ever discovered on earth; it’s nearly 200 miles across — about the width of the state of Massachusetts. Scientists believe the asteroid that caused it was as much as 6.2 miles in diameter (i.e., about 6.0 more miles than the amount of miles I can run).

Under the young-earth model, this asteroid never could have struck. We know that, because if it did plow into the earth some time in the last 10,000 years, history most definitely would have recorded it, and we would still see the effects of its impact today. In fact, most likely, it would have caused mass extinctions and life would not have yet come close to recovering.

And so, if we must accept the young-earth position that either this planet is absurdly young or the Bible is not true, then we’re left with one option: God created the world with Vredefort and dozens of other large craters already in it, for no other reason than to make us think the earth had been hit by massive asteroids when in fact, it never was.

And it’s not just craters. There’s radiometric dating, ice layering, continental drift, human Y-chromosomal ancestry, the fact that we can see starlight that took billions of years to reach earth, and much more — all of which points to a very, very old earth (and if you don’t feel like reading, here’s a helpful infographic made by Christian smart people).

Speaking as a Christian, I think these facts are pretty overwhelming. And I decided it made a lot more sense to believe in a God who first revealed himself in a document meant to convey theological — not scientific or historical — truth, rather than a God who told the literal truth in Genesis but lied in creation.

No. 2: Faith is unnecessary. Throughout the Bible, we see the high premium God puts on faith. It was a frequent theme of Jesus’ messages: Obey me, believe me, even when it doesn’t make sense.

Creationism teaches that there is no reason to have faith, and here’s why: If the scientific evidence, objectively observed, really does point to the entire universe arising in a single creative event no more than 10,000 years ago, as YECs claim, then that means those who wrote the Bible undeniably had knowledge that they couldn’t have had without the touch of God. Thus, the case is closed. God is real, the Bible is inspired and perfect — no further discussion necessary.

Any Christian should recoil from that. We know there is no power in rote knowledge of objective facts; the power is in our faith. Abraham was a man who talked to God. He had no need for faith in him — he had heard his voice. And indeed, Abraham is not remembered as a man who believed in God — that was easy for him. He is revered as a man of faith, because he trusted in God’s promises, even when they seemed impossible.

I accept that there are legitimate reasons to doubt God’s existence. But I still choose to believe and trust in him, because through my faith and his unfailing grace, I have encountered a relationship with a savior that defies explanation.

No. 3: Nonbelievers must be avoided. Young-earth creationism creates (alliteration, get it?) a vast gulf between those who believe in the Bible and virtually everyone else.

When I engage with other Christians who disagree with me on evolution, I have never sensed in them much of a longing for nonbelievers to experience the joy and salvation of knowing Jesus. I more often tend to encounter a deep animosity and mistrust, especially toward scientists. But here’s the thing: If our shared theology is correct, we should be doing all we can to reach that very population (the scientific community) with a message of Christ that might make sense to them.



See, here’s the thing: The genuinely sad part about the above-quoted individual is: he or she has ACKNOWLEDGED that the Bible ISN’T history, CANNOT be taken literally, and gets pretty much every factual statement on any “scientific” topic COMPLETELY WRONG (nonexistent global flood, impossible ark, self-contradiction as to the number of animals supposedly contained in said ark, etc.)

And yet, this individual still cannot bring him/herself to question the underlying theology itself (the “heaven/hell/faith”/salvation/blood-atonement thing).

This stupid fuck tacitly believes that those unlucky enough to have been born in areas where children are customarily brainwashed into aping and parroting DIFFERENT superstitions (Islam, Hinduism – whatever) – are (justifiably) doomed to an eternity of “hellfire” – merely on the basis of what is LITERALLY AN ACCIDENT OF BIRTH – MERE GEOGRAPHY.

That (more than anything else) is what is so irremediably vicious and, frankly, disgusting about the even the “naltiest” of these “N.A.L.Ts” – their underlying theology amounts to “Fundamentalism-lite”.

Actually, I find them worst than (say) the Westboro assholes – because at least the Westboro assholes don’t pretend to be sane.

Quite frankly, there is no chance in hell (pun very much intended), that this individual  will ever succeed in the task of brainwashing someone far smarter and more honest into any sort of “personal relationship” with something which is overwhelmingly likely to turn out to be an imaginary friend.

As a site populated (primarily) by really intelligent ex-fundies sums this up:

The Top Ten Occupations That Lead People to Become Atheists

Keep in mind there are others I could mention and trying to rank them’s a bitch:

Let me start out with biblical/ministry related ones and move on to others:

1) Become a Pastor. Then you’ll learn how church people really behave. It could sour you from thinking there is an inward presence of the Holy Spirit in the lives of Christians. Think Dan Barker, Charles Templeton, Joe Holman, yours truly, and many others. I had to start out this way. 😉

2) Become a Psychiatrist/Psychologist. Most practitioners in these fields do not believe. It’s probably because they know what makes people tick so they just can’t believe in a wrathful god who will judge us for our behavior or thinking patterns. Think Valerie Tarico.

3) Become a Biblical Scholar. I dare you. Do not stay within the confines of conservative scholarship, which is not much better than special pleading. Study at real schools. Think Hector Avalos (OT), Bart Ehrman and Bob Price (NT).

4) Become a Biblical Archaeologist. Just think William Dever and his books What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It?, Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From?, and Did God Have a Wife?

5) Become an Anthropologist. Not only are most anthropologists non-believers they are also relativists. Think David Eller (my favorite).

6) Become a Biologist. Try to maintain intelligent design as a biologist. And after getting your degree try publishing a peer-reviewed paper defending it. Only one has ever slipped through the cracks.

7) Become a Neurologist. Once you see how the brain works it accounts for why we think and behave as we do without the god-hypothesis.

8) Become a Physicist. Enough said. Think Victor Stenger.

9) Become a Zoologist. Study animals and see how much they are like us, and how we are like them. You’ll be forced to consider their fate when they die compared to where humans go when we die. You’ll be forced to consider why they suffer so much if there is a good god.

10) Become a Cosmologist. The existing universe and the many other possible existing ones put out the fires of religious passion. You’ll be forced to consider the vastness of existence and the wastefulness of a creator god whose greatest creation is on this pale blue dot.

Now, keep something in mind: this (purportedly) “reasonable” Christian must *still* operate on an implicit – or explicit – premise amounting to CHRISTIAN SUPREMACY.
It is overwhelmingly likely that he/she knows little to nothing about the myriad of Non-Christian religions (many of which also have purportedly “sacred” texts which also pretend to be “authoritative” in matters of history/morality/biology/cosmology, etc.
Hell, it is overwhelmingly likely that this (purportedly) “reasonable” Christian genuinely believes that only Protestants are “true” Christians.
so, yeah: this individual is still every bit as vicious and bigoted as the more deluded (but, also more honest) of his “Fundie” brethren.
It’s funny: Christians like to claim that they are “light and salt” to the world.
Too much “light” makes you go blind, and too much salt….you get the idea.

Nordstrom is selling “muddy” jeans for $425

Image result for Nordstrom muddy jeans


Several things:

  1. ANYONE who can actually afford to shop at Nordstrom should probably be intelligent enough not to spend over 400 bucks on a single pair of jeans – especially when it would be infinitely more authentic to buy some cheap-ass jeans at the sort of place FREQUENTED BY THE 99%, and then actually do something to get them muddy.
  2. Of course, we all know that won’t happen.  The sort of yuppie/hipster shit-stains who would actually go for this kind of thing have been doing this faux-“authenticity” bullshit for — how long, now?

When did “pre-ripped” jeans fad happen?  When did it become too much effort to actually rip your own jeans?

Of course, the above pales in comparison to the transparent (PVC?) jeans:

The above are just two examples of why the mere idea of “fashion” makes me want to dismember somebody with an axe.

I have always had exactly one “rule” when it comes to clothing: My purpose for wearing clothing is so that I am NOT NAKED.

Beyond that, I (mostly) don’t give a shit.  I detest shopping – even “window”-shopping tends to grate on me.  In any case, I would never spend over four hundred dollars on a single pair of jeans.

The jeans below cost $9.96 at Wal-mart:

Just as a rough estimate, for the same price as the single pair of faux-mud jeans from Nordstrom I could get fifty pairs of the jeans pictured above, and then splatter them with a myriad of whatever the hell I wanted to use – restrained only by my “creativity” and whimsical “fashion” sense.

Here’s a great new fad for hipsters: how about they all go out and buy “vintage” straight-razors, and SLIT ONE ANOTHER’S THROATS?

Hell, we could even make that more “hipsterrrific”, by making it “go viral” — Give it a catchy name like “cut-throat competition”, or something along those lines.

Yeah, I’m pretty sure I’ve become a misanthrope — why do you ask? 🙂



The story of “Balaam’s ass” makes Christianity (literally) asinine:

Fun-fact: both Christianity and Judaism involve a talking donkey:

At first the angel is seen only by the donkey Balaam is riding, which tries to avoid the angel. After Balaam starts punishing the donkey for refusing to move, it is miraculously given the power to speak to Balaam (Numbers 22:28), and it complains about Balaam’s treatment. At this point, Balaam is allowed to see the angel, who informs him that the donkey is the only reason the angel did not kill Balaam. Balaam immediately repents, but is told to go on.


Now, here’s the thing:

1.. Either you actually believe that the above events happened – or you don’t.

2. If you don’t actually believe that the above events happened (exactly as described) – then what does that  (necessarily) imply about any other specific event mentioned in “The” Bible?

See, there’s the problem: Constantinity (er, I mean “Christianity”) isn’t merely a “belief”-system centering around the notion of a Deity becoming human for the sole purpose of being killed – as a “blood sacrifice” TO APPEASE ITS OWN BLOOD-LUST.

That would be bad enough.

Arguably, Constantinity  (Er, I mean “Christianity”) would be both slightly less inane and more elegant from a theological perspective – with a few relatively minor changes:

  1. The first (extremely minor) change would involve ret-conning Yahweh as a COSMOLOGICAL THUG.  This would fit nicely with everything from the “Garden of Eden” nonsense right on down to the (nonexistent) global flood mentioned in the Noah’s ark thing: There is ABSOLUTELY NO (theological) need for “Satan”, given the antics of “Yahweh” as portrayed in the so-called “Old Testament”.
  2. The other (minor) change would involve “jesus” in essentially the same role as Prometheus from Greek mythology: a “superhuman” entity willing to intercede on humanity’s behalf, so as to HAM-STRING YAHWEH.

Quite frankly, the OT “God” is the cosmological equivalent of a petulant child gleefully burning ants with a magnifying glass, for no other reason than to see them burn.


At any rate, the above theological changes would at least make Constantinity (er, I mean “Christianity”) less dependent on gimmickry like Credo quia absurdum.

At any rate – back to Balaam’s ass.

Any so-called “Christian” needs to ask him or herself the following question:

Talking donkey: yes or no.


There’s something horribly wrong when even the “skeptic” community tacitly claims that rationality is impossible:

So, I was (stupidly) wasting time watching some presentation by Richard Carrier, from something called “Skepticon”.  (It appears to be exactly the sort of “Hey, we all happen to mouth the same slogans, and have the same enemies!  Let’s pretend that this is the basis for ‘community’ among us!”-type event which, quite frankly, strikes me as counterproductive in the extreme, in the long run.

The tendency to gather in like-minded “herds” leads to GROUPTHINK and authoritarianism – unless you’re really, really, really careful (which the sort of person who gets off on “conventions” of that kind typically isn’t.)

Anyway, the presentation itself was abysmally sloppy – starting with the fact that they didn’t have their stupid slide-show worked out in advance, so I had to sit through 10 minutes of video of them fucking around with the video-projector.

Now, that’s inexcusable.  Figure out whether your equipment WORKS correctly BEFORE the presentation.    Negligence is inexcusable.

So anyway, the “presentation” itself began with the loaded title “Are Christians delusional?” – and went downhill from there.

First, Richard Carrier seems to buy into the notion that humans are essentially incapable of rationality, due to “evolution”.  (This strikes me as a ‘secular” equivalent of the Christian “Original Sin” line of thought: especially problematic from an organized “movement” predicated on the notion that humans ARE capable of rationality.

But I digress.

His “evidence” for the pervasive irrationality of humans?  Rigged (pseudo)scientific “tests” where people are told to self-rank their ‘”attractiveness”.  Such rankings are then compared to how their attractiveness is ranked by others – and then  any discrepancy between the two figures is proclaimed to be “evidence” that humans are incapable of judging themselves “objectively”.

Tacitly, “objectively” (in this context) amounts to: in terms of the AVERAGE D opinions of OTHERS.

Additionally, the other piece of “evidence” trotted out is the phenomenon where one tends to (supposedly) overestimate how competent he or she is at a given skill – to the extent that (supposedly) “the less competent an individual actually is, the more competent they believe themselves to be,”

Supposedly (according to carrier and others of his ilk) these psychological pathologies are pervasive and ineradicable.  In other words, they are (purportedly) universal, and there is NO means for individuals to correct them.

Now, here’s the problems, as I see them:

  1. First, any self-ranking of “attractiveness” (no matter the context) necessarily requires that the individual(s) being tested already have some specific standard of ‘attractiveness’ – which they presume to be both universal (IE: not culture-bound), and correct.

I call “bullshit” on that, right there.

My first question (before I would even consider participating in these sorts of ‘tests”) would be: “Attractive” to WHOM?  By what STANDARD?

A perfect example of the utter vacuity of this whole “attractiveness” gimmick is the well-known fact that there are many standards of “attractiveness”/”beauty” – even within a given cultural area:

How else do you explain the existence of targeted dating sites such as these:





Now, it may be contenient to stigmatize some (or all) of the above as mere “fetishes” or “paraphilias”, but the fact remains that all of them indicate the existence of “subcultures” whose (implicit or explicit) standard of “attractiveness” or “beauty” differens radically, both from whatever you might consider toe “mainstream” – and from the standards/preferences espoused by all of the others.

So that would be my first question: Attractive to WHOM?  By what standard?

Of course, these “tests” he’s talking about typically don’t bother to inquire into that sort of thing.  Rather, they typically involve some sort of – perverse and simplistic – variant of “rank yourself from 1 to 10”-type thing.

Further, it is never specified whether or not everyone in a given study “overestimated” their (physical) attractiveness, or not.

Here’s a reminder of something which should be so basic as to not require such a reminder:

If 90% of the students taking an exam fail a test, and “only” 10% manage to pass – that 10% STILL PASSED THE TEST.

So, I would have to be shown conclusive evidence – across multiple such studies (done in radically different cultural/subcultural settings) – where literally 100% of the respondants overestimated their own “attractiveness” – to exactly the same extent – to buy into the notion that such an outcome was either pervasive or ineradicable.

Moreover, all that would actually tell anyone was that everyone over-estimates how accurately they mirror their particular demographic/cultural/subcultural standards of “beauty”.

I honestly didn’t bother to watch the rest of the presentation, given the fact that he had already tacitly claimed that rationality is effectively impossible (thus, also implicitly discrediting the entire “skeptic” movement itself), and the fact that he was already going for snarky “humor” involving a (pseudo)scientific “scale of insanity” ranging from 1-5, with 5 being “batshit insane”.)

Quite frankly, if “skepticon” involves that sort of self-congratulatory in-group asspatting, when they can’t even get the fucking projector working — meh.


This video illustrates the theological equivalent of: heroin vs. methadone

The above video (somewhat humorously) illustrates the complete and total inanity of what passes for “Christianity”, as of 2017:

Constantinity (er, I mean “Christianity”)  — the supposed “Body of Christ” – has been decomposing since at least 1054 AD:


(This really isn’tt surprising, given that it has always relied on brainwashing children/the torture and slaughter of “unbelievers”/”heretics” – to propagate itself.


This process of degeneracy has been speeding up over the last 500 years (since the so-called “Reformation”).  Quite frankly, a gaggle of intellectually vacuous brutes could offer no credible answer to a gaggle of gleeful heretics – and as a result, there are approximately 38,000 (incompatible) variants of “Christianity” cluttering up the world with their  inanity:




Meanwhile, the “clergy” (all 38,000 flavores of ’em!), just keep getting caught up in sketchy shit involving hookers and blow (Fundie Protestants), or kiddie-diddling (The Roman Catholic priesthood).

MEANWHILE, another gaggle hipsters, tree-huggers and SJWs have “emerged”, and are really, really, really super-excited to tell us all how “Progressive” they are, and how they’re “not all like that”:




MEANWHILE (back in Reality):  their myriad “churches” become ever-emptier, leading to a world with far fewer nuns – and far more NONES:



TL;DR: “Christianity” bullied ies way to hegemony over the territory of the Roman Empire  by colluding with a thug (Constantine) – squandered that hegemony by means of the “East-West” schism, squandered any pretense at theological unity or non-violence (among all but a tiny handful of so-called “peace” churches), welt insane (“Fundamentalism”) – and is now rightfully paying the price.

Christianity’s “brand” has nearly 2000 years of blood, bile, and (literalist) BULLSHIT.

The dirty little secrets are out in the open, folks.  No amount of (increasingly-frantic) t turd-polishing is going to “fix” this.

If you try to be “relevant” – people flee in droves:


If you try to be “literal” – you end up psychotic:

Personally, I find the entire spectacle extremely entertaining — ESPECIALLY the Affirming “churches”:

(Don’t get me wrong: if this new split between “Progressive” Christians and Fundies ends up rendering “Christianity” even more fractious and culturally impotent – then that’s a “win'” right there.



More on the “Flynn effect”: slavery, sexism and religious bigotry

Let’s think about slavery.

Now, the salient thing about slavery is: the mere existence of slavery DISPROVES Ayn Rand’s claim that “property rights” and “human rights” go together.

Here is one of the less-inane variants of this claim:

There is no such dichotomy as “human rights” versus “property rights.” No human rights can exist without property rights. Since material goods are produced by the mind and effort of individual men, and are needed to sustain their lives, if the producer does not own the result of his effort, he does not own his life. To deny property rights means to turn men into property owned by the state. Whoever claims the “right” to “redistribute” the wealth produced by others is claiming the “right” to treat human beings as chattel.


What “Miss Rand” is (deliberately) ignoring is the fact that such chattel have historically been regarded as property.

In essence, human livestock.

Quite frankly, to the extent that slaves were considered “property” – the slave-owner’s (purported) ‘right” to his (human) “property” was in direct conflict with the right of the aforementioned “human livestock” NOT to be enslaved.

So much for the overt forms of Enslavement.

Now, I will freely admit that slavery is endemic to all savage societies (along with such other glorious attributes as: grinding poverty,  mass starvation, the subjugation of those unlucky enough to be born female in such societies, etc.)

Even the (seemingly minor) forms of “gender”-based subjugation (such as characterizing specific tasks as “women’s work”, or specific agricultural crops as “women’s” crops, etc.) –  merely amounts to a less-thorough version of exactly the same “role”-based victimization at the root of FGM and other crimes against humanity.

At any rate: Ayn Rand is wrong in her claim that “property rights” and “human rights” necessarily go together.

The interesting thing is: she (tacitly) admits her error.  She does so by means of phrase “material goods”.

In other words, material goods (which are “produced by the effort of individual men”) are seen by Rand as a necessary component of an individual man “owning” his life.

The mere fact that individual autonomy/moral agency etc., can only be “framed” as an issue along the lines of “who ‘owns’ you/your life?” in itself speaks volumes with regard to just exactly how pervasively corrupt and vicious the (innumerable) variants of slavery endemic to historical (and putatively “modern”) societies are.

i submit the following: any “social role” which involves enforcement (IE: punishing the victim) amounts to an instance of enslavement.  Such slavery need not be De jure (in fact, the social system in question will probably take great pains to disguise the true nature of such institutionalized brutality under all sorts of euphemisms), but it amounts to de facto Enslavement, nonetheless.

Some salient examples of what I’m getting at:







I could go on, but you probably get the idea:

Any “social” (or political) structure which depends on the notion that SOME humans are “more equal than others” – and which permits the use of physical coercion to keep the victims in “their place” – is nothing more, less, or other than an elaborate slave-pen.


The truly vicious thing about the above fact is: the corruption and viciousness of such “social systems” tends to be disguised under all sorts of “aesthetic” window-dressing – which is, in and of itself – harmless.

A really great example of this is: India.

I have a soft-spot for quite a lot of Indian culture: Hindustani  (and to a lesser extent, Carnatic) classical music, various foods (naan, samosas, aloo palak, etc.).

However, I simply cannot blind myself to the pervasive evils which still hobble far too many of that region’s population from achieving what Ayn Rand would have called “full human stature”.

For example: the “caste” system,  and the systematic victimization of those unlucky enough to have been born female:


So, no: IF the only way to secure the recognition of basic human rights for the whole population of the Indian subcontinent (particularly those of lower “caste”, and women) involved “cultural genocide” against so-called “Indian culture” – then so be it.

Samosas and Sitar music would be an insignificant “price” to pay for the expansion of civilization to an additional 1.311 billion people.

Now, to be fair, I personally don’t think that the “aesthetic” aspects of culture are inextricably linked to stuff like (for example): “structural” misogyny, “demographic” oppression (“Jim Crow” etc.) – but this is exactly what happens far too often:

The innocuous (“aesthetic”) aspects of a given culture are hijacked by the  most reactionary and brutal of “traditonalists”.

I personally believe that this is one reason why there is a tendency for the more idealistic/individualist segments of any given population to sneer at “traditional” aesthetics, when they finally figure out exactly how vicious the “traditional” forms of social-stratification endemic to their particular region genuinely are.

The (seeming) irony here is: the embrace of those aesthetic tidbits by individuals fortunate enough to be in a situation where such “social” stratification has been (at least comparatively) de-fanged:


Now, the salient fact to understand about the “Burquini” and all such “neo-traditionalist” aesthetic gimmicks is: it is unlikely that (putatively “muslim”) women failing to comply with “modesty” bullshit in Australia will be  STONED TO DEATH or BEHEADED, for doing so – in Australia, where this stupid thing was initially designed.

Australian “Musilm” women are “Permitted” to learn to read – and even create businesses based on pandering to their specific “culture’s” silliest taboos.


I submit that individuals such as Aheda Zanetti “free ride” on the fact that the West does (somewhat) better than the rest of the world, in terms of at least paying lip-service to individualism and human rights.

This leads to a weirdly “Hipster”-ish sort of “traditionalism”, where “traditional” aesthetics (which have been suitably “de-fanged”) are used as a form of “dress-up”, akin to (say) renaissance fairs, or LARP (Live-aciton role-playing).


“Disown” them back, already:

One of the favored tactics of racist/sexist/xenophobic idiot trash “relatives” – hell, their primary tactic for extorting compliance from those who know better – and try to BE better as a result – involves either threatening to “disown” or “disinherit” the recalcitrant individual.

As I’ve covered elsewhere (at length): acquiescence to this sort of emotional (or financial) BLACKMAIL is flatly, utterly, incontrovertibly UNACCEPTABLE.

Quite frankly, it is way past the point where their (cognitive and moral) betters need to embrace this tactic, and begin using it against bigoted trash.

For example: if the racist Granny from the previous post knew – beyond the slightest shadow of a doubt – that her children/grandchildren would never visit her again, or willingly be associated with her in a public setting  after such an outburst – then there is at least a slight chance that she might at least pretend to be a worthwhile human being – at least long enough not to be a fucking embarrassment to those children/grandchildren (who are  most likely – at least judging by the “Flynn Effect” – both cognitively and morally superior to her).

Most likely, both her children and grandchildren are cognitively better (in terms of abstract thought, and the ability to organize their own knowledge-base), and they are morally better, in that they are more capable of “universalizing” ethical principles, and applying them to those “outside” of their particular, bigoted little “identity” box.

“Granny” (and her ilk) need to  know that the only way that her children/grandchildren will ever actively associate with her again is if she at least attempts to IMPROVE cognitively and morally – to whatever extent such might be possible.

Now, don’t get me wrong: If “granny” is genuinely afflicted with something like dementia/Alzheimer’s, etc. – then expecting her to improve is probably not realistic.

However, in a situation where the individual is “still” capable of competency, they can improve.

A perfect example of this was George Wallace (the segregationalist, “Jim-Crow” piece of shit who renounced racism, after surviving having been gunned down like a rabid dog:

During his final years, Wallace publicly recanted his racist views and asked for forgiveness from African Americans.[3][4]


Now here’s the thing: if a”Jim Crow” dick-head like George Wallace could eventually become an actual human being, your racist “granny” has no excuse, whatsoever.