The golden rule. It fucking works.

Or at least it would if people followed it properly instead of reinterpreting it to be used as a weapon for their use unto others. The thing that makes the rule work is that it isn't anybody's tool. Everyone defines the golden rule for themselves as is clearly stated in the rule itself. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Treat others the way you want to be treated. If someone acts like a dick to you in a specific way, you're fully entitled to act like a dick to them, but only if you if you want everyone to be a dick to you in the exact same way. The golden rule, therefore, should not be interpreted punitively, as we'd enter a mobius strip of douchebaggery where everyone pretends they're simply doing justice when they're really making the whole thing a million times worse. Basically, we'd be arguing about absolutely nothing, because we'd be opposing actions by doing those same actions. This is the reason the golden rule is worded that we must do to others what we want them to do to us. Many however, seem to interpret it as whatever you do, will then be done to you. This doesn't work. It is a rule to live by that will bring you happiness if you follow it. However, there is no tangible punishment for breaking it. Acting like an asshole to someone will not physically force someone to act like an asshole to you. Karma is bullshit. However, now we're stuck with a problem. People misuse the golden rule all the time. An atheist and a christian can argue for days trying to convert each other to the other's religious ideology both citing the golden rule as justification for attacking each other's beliefs. How? Well, it works like this. To anyone discussing this monologue in the possible future, the atheist and christian are both idiots in this case. That's not the point. The atheist and christian are both likely to agree with the golden rule. Well, unless the atheist is a misanthropist, which wouldn't surprise me, but that's a huge digression from the topic at hand. There may be more of those, it is 3 in the damn morning after all. Anyway, neither the christian nor the atheist is actually following the golden rule, even if they say they are. The christian can say that in following with the golden rule, he would want to be spared by Christ from eternal hellfire and have the voice of Jesus to guide him through hard times and moments of moral wavering, and the atheist can say in the same vein that he would want to be convinced to live his one life to the fullest by not following a bullshit religion that demeans the sanctity of life by implying that we always can take another swing in heaven, and I'm not entirely on board with either view (again digressing) but in the context of the golden rule they are both fantastically, incredibly wrong. The best, most effective, most no-bullshit wording of the golden rule also happens to be the least flowery and most mundane wording, and it goes like this: Treat others the way you want to be treated. Dipshit (opt.) Even if the atheist and christian up there are both performing the action they'd want performed on them, they're ignoring the point because they aren't treating each other the way they want to be treated. They are both demeaning each other's beliefs on an entirely subjective field. If they are both truly following the golden rule, that means they want to walk around with people telling them their views on god are wrong, and I'm guessing anyone who managed to get in an argument this ridiculously typical doesn't want that. Naturally, this doesn't extend to things that can absolutely be proven. So I'm gonna put this in a kickass font and try to wrap up the religion part of this.

STOP ARGUiNG ABOUT WHiCH RELIGION iS RiGHT THEY'RE All right in the same way they're all wrong. Yes, atheists, I am looking at you. When someone says gravity doesn't exist, you have every right to shut them up, but that's science and we're all over here talking about religion without you. Fuck. Religions. Argue about them when there's evidence and proof and research and all the other things that make it possible to argue about something. Actually, new rule. You're only allowed to argue about things you can also debate about.
Okay, I think we just about covered that as well as we can. Yes, I'm aware science more or less points to a lack of afterlife, but as far as I know the concept of consciousness hasn't been fully explained by science and I'm not a science major, so I can't argue about things I'm not educated in and it's just- okay, you can call us all retards when everyone understands the physics of why nothing happens when you die. This really wasn't all supposed to be about religion. We're moving on now.