What should we think about?
In reading @GreekSkeptic's thread, "Is there a right way to think?" I started wondering, what should we think about? After reading a geology book, I have become concerned that we don't think about the world's resources and their connection to everything else, including riches, poverty, and war. If we had a king, this wouldn't matter, but as a democracy, perhaps there are some things we should be aware of.
Comments (134)
EDIT: I promise I'm not anti-American, but this habit of Americans of assuming everyone is American is infuriating.
They're kings metaphorically, but they yield far more power. But the mistake we keep committing is believing that a king (or leader) is what we need. They know no better than people what they need.
Indeed, a good part of the reason why we are burning the planet, committed to forever wars and inching closer to nuclear annihilation is because people in power think they know more than they do.
We don't have a democracy; we have fractured republics. I can't say what we should think, because there are too many topics.
No, no, no… We just assume everyone wishes they were American.
Follow your curiosity. It knows where it’s going—or at least how to get there.
Caries.
Adult diapers.
But mostly, caries.
Everything. Nothing. And why the chronic habit (nearly contagious/mimetic learned idiocy) of not-thinking persists even in this post-Enlightenment "Information Age" (e.g. in the US, "Trump/MAGA" are only effing symptoms). :mask:
Why assume Trump/Maga are the best example of not thinking?
Think about it, because if you think you don’t need to think about it…well, just think about it.
Aren’t Maga the only ones in the US pretending they don’t want the US to become like Europe, while Europe becomes less and less like Europe every year? Nothing to think about there? I guess if you don’t care about the US and Europe qua US and Europe, there is no reason to call what MAGA thinks “thinking”.
And sadly parochial.
I had a laugh at the idea that the USA doesn't have a king. Those countries with titular kings managed to build limitations in to their political systems, usually for the king to act only on the advice of the parliament. The USA apparently thought that since their king was elected, they could give them more power. It's their undoing. European, and other monarchies, kept the king in a box; the USA actually removed restraint on the executive.
That other nations might find the American system admirable is risible.
Which particular non-or-un-Americans/Europeans are the targets of your ire? Who are they who sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids?
Your government is partially based on the American system. What do you want to change it to? :razz:
AI says philosophy is thinking about existence, knowledge, values, and reality.
I think we need to understand reality, economics, and the best way to accumulate and distribute wealth for an ideal civilization.
What is the value of that? I think we have some serious problems that we need to resolve so our children and our children's children have a chance of having good lives. Being curious about the problems, gathering information, and being creative in resolving the problems, has value, but I am not sure frivolous thinking has much value.
Interesting comment considering I think colleges fail to teach how to have a useful understanding of economics. Without an understanding of reality, there can be no useful thoughts about economics.
Children start to grasp the difference between real and unreal at a fairly early age, don't they?
You guys copied our federalism. I think you secretly love the USA.
I long thought Europeans were fortunate to have a relatively long memory of kings and the struggle to gain the power of the people, because without that experience, nor education for democracy, there appears to be no will to be self-governing.
Capitalism based on the British autocracy is not the best way to have democracy.
The British have never really had autocracy due to the Magna Carta.
Can we please stop confusing the USA with democracy? The US began with slaves and masters, and the industrial north was even worse regarding the exploitation of humans. I do not know of which federation you refer, but I think we owe much to the Haudenosaunee Confederacy (Iroquois). We owe much to Athens, then Hellenism, and philosophers from that time to the present.
Strictly speaking, it's a republic, not a democracy.
You have chosen of subject worth thinking about, and I am delighted.
Looking at online explanations of autocracy, I see there is disagreement. One source said there are 3 forms of autocracy, dictatorships, monarchies, and dominant-party regimes. I think it is an error to restrict our understanding of autocracy to the organization of the government. Where there is an autocracy, the whole social and economic order would be part of that autocracy. In the US that is supposed to be democratic, the Industries were modeled after Britain's autocracy. We have some understanding of our Industry being autocratic, but our understanding of this is non nonexistent. Would you like to develop this thinking?
What is said is that American industries were modeled after the US military, whose structure comes from the Prussian military.
The US went through a period of de-industrialization starting in the 1980s. That old military style evolved into something more flexible, but there are still elements of it to be seen.
And the British have never had an autocracy.
Around age 8, the child's brian literally changes. The myelin sheath that covers the neurons is completed, and the shutdown of our brains begins. No longer will the child absorb information as they do the previous years. The child will begin judging what is true and what is not true, but this judgment is based on what was learned during the first 8 years. There is no guarantee that there will be a good understanding of reality.
Curiosity is not frivolous thinking, it is going where your heart leads you. If your heart doesn’t tell you what the right thing to do is, nothing will. Here’s a quote. I use all the time. It’s from Ziporyn’s translation of the Chuang Tzu.
Wow, I thought I was the only one saying the US adopted the Prussian model of bureaucracy and also the is model of education for technology. Who esle is saying that? I hate being alone with the Prussian understanding.
Considering there isn't 100% agreement on what autocracy means, I am sticking my argument about the British being autocratic. This explanation comes from an old book, so maybe our disagreement is because the meaning of the word has changed.
The US begins with a New Social Order. That social order was more idealistic than actualized. The ideal was based on philosophy and the Enlightenment, but the new social order was not for everyone. It was for White property owners, and it was supported by slavery and the exploitation of immigrants desperate for jobs.
I can appreciate that point of view, but I can not accept it for myself. I am realizing something about myself I did not think about before. I am thinking I would not vote for Tzu to be my president, and I would value a man I wanted to be president more than I value a philosopher. It is said, "he turned down a job offer from King Wei of Chu, because he valued his personal freedom," according to Wikipedia. Therefore, the man willing to lead a nation is more important in my framework of human value.
However, we need artists and musicians, and philosophers, but someone better be thinking about our problems and how to resolve them and be willing to take on the responsibility of leadership.
Strictly speaking, I am female, not a human. :lol:
The Declaration of Independence could also be called a Declaration of Responsibility. Culturally, we have had a democracy with principles to live by, and number 1 is being a responsible citizen. Ideally, our social order is democratic, and I believe our economy and relationships would be better if we replaced our autocratic Industry with the democratic model.
I don't think there can be a republic without a democratic social order.
And there’s no reason why you should. From what little I know of you, you are clearly a person of will. That’s a good thing, but it’s not what’s right for me.
UK, Germany, France, Sweden. All the places white people used to believe it was ok to be British, German, French, Swedish, etc.
Poland is still Poland.
Maga is a symptom of not thinking? Ok. But is there nothing more to “MAGA” besides lack of thought? Or, more to my point, is lefty wokeness a symptom of not thinking too, or is maga the only evidence of the disease of not thinking post enlightenment? The knee-jerk throwing of all maga under the no-thought bus sounds pretty thoughtless to me.
Those swarthy, southern Europeans aren't quite white enough, are they?
It has nothing to do with white. It has to do with the political opinion that being British is a good thing to be. Or being German is a good person to be.
I’m of Italian decent. Italy’s current president is fighting back - but all of Europe is in trouble.
So what the hell are you talking about? You can’t out racism this greasy dago.
Well, you mentioned white people and certain northern Europe countries, you know, so I thought you were going there. As for Italy, which one? Most regions have their own dialect, and hate those others who don't speak it. Most of my ancestors come from around Potenza. I don't know if a Genoese would let me in the door.
Define what you mean by "lefty wokeness"? AFAIK that pejorative expression invokes another vacuous, right-wing media boogeyman in order to "own the Libs". :mask:
I love your reply. I also love democracy because it is about our differences and how, together, we make things good.
Yes. I don’t want to hang around only with people who think the same way I do.
Good, you bring up things we should think about.
I do attempt to be inclusive, but was surprised by the Google reply to my question of citizen responsibility in kingdoms. Google says in kingdoms, citizens are expected to do the same things as people in a democracy, and I am unsure how well this works. Right now, it isn't working so well in the US either. I don't think many understand civic duties in the US. Our present president is certainly redefining the powers of the president.
Historically, people have struggled with their governments, but it was my understanding that in a democracy, the mechanisms for change are built in so that change can happen without violence. I think education for technology has left US citizens poorly prepared for peaceful citizen action. If I were in Russia, I don't think I would be so bold about expressing disagreement.
This statement is not racist but a truth for all humans and has been so from the beginning human time. Today, this tribalism has arisen with indigenous people around the world. Back in the day, there was competition between tribes, and some wanted to be known as "the real people". Some tribes had what we may consider silly rules, such as only people in their tribe could wear their hair in a certain way, identifying them with their tribe.
This is a good subject to discuss. Some of us like to believe we can create a better world, and besides needing science to protect our earth, we need to know normal human desires and behaviors, and the consequences of ignoring knowledge of being human.
I volunteered in the bookroom at our community center bazaar, and there were a few books about being woke. The understanding of those books was a deeper understanding of oneself, the world, and one's connection to others. They were happy, uplifting books. I just want everyone to know that is possible.
The left. The not-‘MAGA’. (MAGA, that pejorative expression that helps “progressives” own the fascist/authoritarian haters). Maybe “wokeness” triggers a shut-down of communication, but so does just saying MAGA is the easy example of “not-thinking”. (Although it didn’t shut me down apparently.)
Quoting Athena
There’s an element of what I am trying to say that is tribal for sure. But there is a more raw tribalism that properly arises closer to home, like in your house and your town and your city, and then there is a different kind of tribalism that incorporates the broad differences between nations like England and Germany. America is a good example of the two types of tribalism. In America, there is a real difference between a tribe from Alabama and a tribe from Montana and a tribe from San Diego, but all of them have the sense of being American, because being American is more ideological, or better, cultural, in nature. America itself is cross-tribal, by nature. We are many different peoples, who together form a nation unlike Britain, which is unlike Portugal.
But when the Brit (of any color) seeks to save Britain from becoming France or Afghanistan, when he or she seeks to save British culture, he only looks like a racist Brit because he is white. This means the white British man becomes the worst representative of the British culture. Today, because of leftism and immigration, that apparent racism of white British men makes the whole British culture look unjustifiable and not worth saving. It even justifies actively changing the culture of “England”, turning England into a piece of land only, and no longer a culture. So it’s mixed with age old tribalism, but it’s a broad cultural landscape (called England or France) at stake.
If all the immigrants assimilate to the culture, like all these Europeans did when America formed (the Irish in the 1800s, the Italians in the 1900s, etc), we see American culture change, but we see the Italian immigrant also change and become Italian-Americans too. Of course each wave of immigrants must be allowed to bring their unique past with them, but they must seek to build something new, drawing from the country they emigrated to.
Like tribalism, racism is also in the mix. In America for example, the Chinese didn’t really assimilate as quickly as the Irish and the Italians, and of course Black American history is filled with racism. These are more tribalisms, but racial ones, and not so much cultural or ideological. And ultimately they are terrible growing pains underneath what American ideology and culture really are.
But my larger point here is that people let the issues of race dominate the whole separate issue of culture. The historic racism defines the whole culture, ie. “America is a racist country.” America is much, much different than just its racism. Same with Germany. Etc. But the only cultures we are allowed to promote are those of the downtrodden and the minorities. Else we sound “supremacist” or “prejudiced against X”. And during this distraction, the majority is being turned into a minority, and Europe qua Europe slips away.
My great-grandparents were from Abruzzi and Sicily, but I am a third generation American, so at this point, Italy may as well be Greece or Egypt.
Quoting Ciceronianus
I pretty much made my point above, but white people, who happen to be British, can’t really be proud to be “British” anymore, can they. White Brits are colonialist, oppressors. They aren’t allowed to be proud Brits without sounding racist.
Europe is giving up its various identities. Maybe some can say “so be it” a bye bye English culture, but that is what could happen. It offends people to even notice this. But race/ethnicity is not the point at all. This isn’t about putting down the other and balancing races. It’s about building or protecting something unique, as a good in itself.
Personally, I like all of the differences and don’t want to lose any of these cultures. But political correctness has trained too many too well. We are ordered to treat most traditional things, especially when they are white traditions, as hiding badness, so no one has felt safe enough to talk about any of the traditions (as they slip away, one institution at a time).
Aka Antifa – opposition to pro-"fascist / authoritarian" white grievance paranoia. Yes, we're guilty as charged. :mask:
Quoting Fire Ologist
I didn't claim or imply MAGA is "the only" symptom of not thinking, though at the moment MAGA is the most conspicuous symptom (re: "alternative facts" anti-intellectualism, anti-science ...)
Cool.
I would argue that MAGA conservatism is only the most conspicuous example of not thinking because of the complicity of the major media and the conquests of leftist ideology since the 1960s. The left has successfully made the caricature of the white conservative common knowledge. The media says MAGA uses “alternative facts" and anti-intellectualism, and is anti-science. But an honest look at what conservatives say, and think, and do, and care about, is not what the media portrays.
And further, I find the left to be fairly conspicuous in their ignorance (for some). The left is anti-history (when has socialism ever worked at all even slightly?), anti-intellectualism (who on the left will allow in good faith a conservative to challenge their dogma and debate the possibility that they are wrong about something with that conservative, or worse learn something new?), and anti-science is shown in how ‘consensus’ among popular scientists and the authority of ‘peer review’ has replaced thorough skepticism and honest experimentation and falsification, ie, we honestly don’t know shit about the climate or medicine, even given how much we know, but “science” gets to make moral law (burning fuel is a sin) and set policy (no more nuclear power plants, get your Covid shot to save the planet…).
But fine, MAGA are the cretans - we’ve taken that abuse since the original Hitler (Ronald Reagan).
I was happy you referred to "MAGA conservatism." I thought that might indicate you distinguish it from Conservatism, which once championed individual rights and limited government. But then you disappointed me, and stopped using the "MAGA" qualifier.
The grotesque rogues gallery that is the regime now in power in our Great Republic (it resembled a republic, once) is intent on empowering the federal government and restricting individual liberty. MAGA, it seems, consists of its bewildered and besotted followers. If that's Conservatism, it's mutated considerably.
Quoting Ciceronianus
:up: :up:
True. These are all distinguishable terms: maga, conservative, traditionalist, rightwing, Republican.
So are these: woke, leftist, progressive, liberal, democrat.
I still disagree you’ve pinpointed “MAGA” if you see zero thinking in a maga supporter. But, at least you’ve focused the non-thinking paint brush with a little more precision.
So if we want to distinguish between maga and conservative, are there any thinkers who are conservative? Is it just MAGA who clearly don’t think? I assumed anyone who voted for Trump and votes Republican, and finds good in some things republicans do, was one of your “MAGA” non-thinkers. My bad I guess. Because conservatives have to vote for Trump, precisely because of the way Harris and Biden and leftists and socialists and some liberals support “empowering the federal government and restricting individual liberty.”
Lots more to think about.
I'm definitely on the Left (i've confirmed this is several fora, several 'survey' type quizzes etc... and I've never been even 'on the line' as it were). But i recognize almost nothing of what 180/Cic are talking about here in my conservative friends etc..
I think there's some truck to one point on each side though:
1. 180 etc.. are right, generally, the self-avowed and proud "MAGA" types are running a bit of a scam (not themselves, they are pawns). It's almost a simply marketing ploy with big, crayon words to bandy about. Those people do certainly, unintentionally, seem to be anti-intellectualism, anti-science etc..
2. You are right: The left active thwarts and shuns any intellectual, scientific or sociological reality tat doesn't support the underlying emotional milieu they've worked themselves into. This has proved to be the more dangerous of the two, by a wide margin. There has been eight years of 'MAGA' America, and we see, loud and clear, where the hate, violence and vitriol is coming from. Not. MAGA.
:mask: wtf ...
:up:
Quoting AmadeusD
For some reason that is a bold statement of opinion, and not just an observation of what is actually happening right before our eyes.
Quoting 180 Proof
Exactly.
You worded that very well. I had not thought the thought of tribal differences, that is not just a difference of people in different places, but also a difference of quality, such as you said, the difference between tribes and being American, which can also be tribal. When I was a kid, the school said we should ask our parents what we were, expecting us to name a European country. My mother got indignant and said we are American, 57 different varieties. :lol: But I always wanted to be an Indian and was horrified when I learned how badly we treated native Americans.
I love all our differences like I love a field full of different colored flowers. I love that my city celebrates the Day of the Dead from Mexico, and we have an annual Asian Festival that used to represent all flavors of Asians, but now is down to a Japanese celebration because the people who started the celebration got old like me and can't do what they once did. That is a sad loss to our community.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Are you aware of the divide in the US and a fight for what it means to be a good American and decent human being? Not since our Civil War have we been so divided. Daily, the horrors of ICE are in the news, along with the actions of those who oppose ICE. ICE is behaving as badly as Germany's Gestapo. I am wondering if the US will exist for another 100 years. I don't think it can if it does not come to peace with itself. Too many US citizens do not seem to know that Mexicans owned the land north of the river that divides us. We have a treaty with Mexico that was supposed to protect the rights of former Mexicans, who did not cross the border, but the border crossed them. It seems to me this matter of citizenship is as old as ancient times and was tied up with notions of slavory. A big dividing point between Jews and Christians was notions about who can be one of us, with Judaism being more exclusive than Christianity.
I don't care where a child is born, if the child is educated in the US that child has learned to be American and from there, decisions should be based on the protection of children and family values. Mankind needs to up its moral standing and womankind might help, but the women supporting Trump sadden me very much because maybe womankind will not do better than mankind. Unfortunately, female Christians can be the worst. Whatever, our exclusiveness is a very good subject to discuss. I am glad to know the US is not the only country having a hard time with the instinct to fight for our group and not care about the well-being of all children.
That is an awesome statement. Our media has become our worst enemy, and it is my understanding that one of the most powerful media owners is not a US citizen. Freedom of speech is a good thing, but it also needs to be held accountable. We have sensationalized our news stories and forgotten or at least ignore our values.
In a small tribe, morals will be kept because people know each other, and the well-being of the tribe is important to everyone. When the tribe is millions of people, everyone becomes anonymous, and the well-being of a group this large does not impress our consciousness with the same personalness as a small tribe.
Religions made unnaturally large populations possible, but I don't understand how they can be maintained with modern science. The religions do not share the same beliefs, and that weakens them. Nationalism also makes large populations possible, but we can see now that we should not take nationalism for granted. When civilizations face hard times, they turn on each other. Being amoral is not a good thing.
Love it!
Quoting Athena
There really are so many things like that in America - totally agree. Nothing better than to hear some old guy with an accent talk about how much they love being American, while they are staying proud of some of the good things from their heritage at the same time - that’s the way to be.
Quoting Athena
We are all being groomed to hate. It’s our own faults for hating at all.
Quoting Athena
That’s not really true. There are some individual instances of abuse, maybe too many, but ICE has a dirty, dangerous job, so if we can’t stomach the hard parts and the ugliness, we should change the law, not stand in their way throwing rocks like we live in the Wild West and need to form vigilante gangs to fight the rogue cowboys. Hating ICE agents is misplaced. Hate Trump and Noem if you want, blame our legislators for not making the case their enabling laws are being abused, but it makes no sense to me to blame the grunts whose lives are hard enough.
Quoting Athena
I agree with that. The world would be a more peaceful place if everyone reminded themselves of just that everyday. Love is all you need, so let’s try to get there.
Quoting Athena
Me too. I fear what leftists want to make of NYC and what Newsome has made of California and what Democratic leadership makes of the political dialogue in Congress and in the press, and how the press always runs with whatever the Dems say and run against whatever Repubs say. The left is as likely to win as the repubs are to save what we have, but if the left wins, that will be the end of America (even though many leftists honestly love America). Immigration will be fixed if the left wins, because no one will want to stay here and they’ll be more likely to close the border from the inside, like the rest of the socialist states always do. If we are not an Islamic caliphate.
Quoting Athena
I don’t think I agree with all that. No more divisions for moral arguments. We all need to up our moral standing. Enough judging others first. That said, American Christians (not Republican Catholics as much) but the Christians can be too quick to pontificate and moralize using Jesus’ name to hide weak political arguments. But that said, the secular moralizing is the worst to me. I’ll take a Christian woman preaching how I am going to hell, over a secular lefty telling me how much I am not a Christian or how much of a rape supporter and fascist and racist I am any day.
Quoting Athena
It certainly promotes division, and hides a lot of facts, to promote an ideology instead of just the news. At least they keep getting caught fabricating bullshit.
Quoting Athena
That’s interesting and worth thinking about. I think that is why everyone accuses the other side of being a cult. We can’t imagine these broad groups actually are full of real people. A broad group like “maga” or “socialists” is a shallow box. Individual, actual people, are deep and too complex for such gross generalizations. But we get to feel better than millions of people if we allow ourselves to hate these groups. Viewing them as sheep in a cult lets us not look past the shallow boxes at the real people.
Quoting Athena
See, in one sense if people stayed in small tribes there would be constant threat of war right in your own backyard. Constant for all, until we formed huge populations. So if you think religion made this unnaturally possible (which is also an interesting idea), than that speaks well for religion, not badly about it.
Religion isn’t opposed to science. It can be if you want. But science doesn’t know very much either. And morality is an utter mess. Religion of sorts goes all the way back to the beginning of human history. Religion is literally what you make of it. It can be, and has been, a force for good. Like science can be, and has been, but is often wrong, and can be used to make life worse for many.
I like that idea. Our public broadcasting channel is doing shows about native Americans and their understanding of spiritual reality and our relationship with it and the earth. It gives me happiness to think of the Native American point of view and attempt to be spiritually woke.
Quoting Athena
I think there's a mix of this (patently true) and that once you're in a group that large, morals diverge in quite wild ways (this is one fairly clear example of morality being subjective).
The current difficulty integrating religious points of view in a pluralistic society (the West) seems to speak to this. Even when the morals are fairly well-known, they can simply but heads.
Quoting Athena
Do you think this perhaps say a bit about how you approach your social views? The reason I ask is not to impugn this tactic (taking on other cultures spiritual thinking) - its just to see whether this is a 'feel good' thing only, or if there's something behind it. I can't quite imagine the benefits beyond self-satisfaction (coming from a fairly spiritual person in the general sense(me, that is), tbf). And for full disclosure, likening ICE to Gestapo seems to perhaps reveal something similar about hte lack of rigour in your thinking - I guess i'm trying to satisfy myself that these modes of thinking aren't overlapping and feeding into one another. That would be intellectually a real shame.
The Normans were uber bad-asses, yes. If the people living in England would have joined Harold Godwinson, the Norman invasion probably could have been deflected. When attacked, unify or be defeated. That principle shows up in Russian history as well.
The Normans should never have been able to win at the battle of Hastings, but they had the good fortune that the English army had been fighting off the Norwegians two weeks before in the north of England. They were depleted and exhausted. Then the Normans seeing the English troops dug in a good defensive position on a hill at Hastings, came up with a dastardly plan. They made it look like their whole army was attacking the defensive positions. This attack seemed to fail, the English thought they were going to win easily. Then the Norman troops turned and fled down the hill. The English tasting victory ran after them to finish them off. But as they descended the hill, fresh Norman troops appeared on both sides and surrounded them.
This devious despicable behaviour was then exploited to bring the entire population of the England to heal over the next few years. Followed by the Welsh and the Scottish over the next few centuries. It was one of the most successful takeovers and emancipation of a country by hostile powers in history. But of course the history that comes down to us was written by the victors.
Yes, native and indigenous peoples knew the importance of living in harmony and balance with their ecosystem. We can learn a lot from them.
You speak of coping skills that are necessary because we are limited and have pushed way beyond our limits. Our brains and energy levels are being overtaxed. Desmond Morris, a zoologist, explains the problem in his book "The Naked Ape".
Quoting Fire Ologist
Here, I think we need to be more specific. The belief that a God made a man from mud and a woman from his rib, goes against science, and what good can come out of anything that is that far from science?
This involves morals and justice, so it really matters to me.
I would like to discuss socialist and capitalist and your objection to classifying people and generalizing discriptions of " what those people do". Maybe if I say the capitalists are the immoral people and the socialists are the moral people, you can see what is wrong with those generalizations. You generalize and find fault with groups of people but defend the actions of the German Gestapo and that is worrisome.
I feel sorry for the people used by ICE and those sent to war. Recently, the moral crisis faced by military personnel has come up in public discussion. I am sure the moral crisis also comes with ICE.
I don't think this is anything but disingenuous and inflammatory.
I note you do not engage any criticism of your position, consistently.
I do? I spoke of the shallowness of identity politics.
Quoting Athena
Really??
Where did I do that? You seem to say things like the above so easily. You come off as divisive and extreme, as you bemoan the division in America.
Anyone who breaks the law deserves punishment, including ICE employees. Period. But that goes for immigrants too. All people who immigrate to the US without honoring our due process of immigration law should expect a visit from ICE. Period. Time for everyone to take some responsibility for the mess that is US immigration. ICE are just doing what we all hired them to do.
Work to change the law if you don’t like what ICE has to do to enforce the law. Yell at the leadership and the legislators. But leave the boots on the ground out of your fantasies about what the Gestapo was.
Quoting Athena
Then don’t call them Gestapo to make some political point. Would you say “Gestapo!” to their spouses and children? As they leave in the morning to go off to work?
Quoting Athena
Please do.
Quoting Athena
So I heard someone explain that the religious person sees her new baby as a gift from God, while the scientific person sees her new baby as the wondrous workings of cellular biology. But that is stupid. The religious person can see her new baby as the wondrous workings of cellular biology AND a gift from God. And it’s the same thing with creation. Life evolved from primordial soup into men and women over billions of years AND, God created man and woman, male and female, to complement and complete one another, and be as one flesh in marriage…... Thousands of years of good have followed from that story (and I venture to say, always will).
People who think the earth is 6000 years old, or that there was an actual adult male rib involved in the birth of the first woman, on day 6… - that’s weird stuff. The Bible isn’t a science book. But you thinking science can replace religion is missing the point of both science and religion if you ask me. How about the Broadway play Wicked - can any good come out of that being as it is so far from science? Or when someone says “Broadway has to be banned because nothing good can come from something so far from science,” do they maybe not understand what Broadway is for people? Or science?
You sound authoritarian about all religion. Some of us religious folks can walk and chew gum at the same time.
Look at the problem of Islamists taking over European and North American cities. Who cares what Muslims all believe about God, and what their religion says is truth. Just like who cares what any religion says. It’s not the religious beliefs that actually cause the problems for anyone who doesn’t agree with them. It’s when religions try to enforce their religious law in secular, shared society. It’s when political leaders use religion to spark emotion to bolster political action and law. We only have to care if politicians tell us to wear face coverings, stone people for not being Muslim, yell out their prayer calls in front of a Christian Church stopping traffic while banning public Christmas celebrations (or crashing cars into them) etc. We don’t have to care what religious leaders think and say (remember free speech? Freedom of religion and assembly?) - we only have to care about the politics and the criminality - are these lawful in our society or not? Do Islamist takeovers of Western cities allow for freedom and equal rights and prosperity for anyone? Or not.
I agree with you that religion masquerading in politics needs to tamp itself down. I hate hearing politicians sound like they are preaching, under any religion. It’s shitty marketing - of religion AND whatever stupid political point they are failing to make as they bring in “God” and “evil” to turn the conversation emotional.
The closest religion should get to politics is in a way that is utterly non-sectarian. Government leaders should not appear to favor this faith over that one, nor favor atheists over theists.
Our public broadcasting station is doing many shows about native Americans, and usually their spirituality is brought up as a driving force for them. For them, we are in a spiritual battle to save the very life of our planet. I don't think that spirituality goes well with our major religions. What do you think?
I had to do a lot of work to track down an apparent disagreement about ICE. I don't know which side you think is the right one. :groan: We shouldn't have sides in the first place because now we have an argument against sides rather than the issues. It was Trump who created MAGA. Somehow this is tangled up with "that pejorative expression that helps 'progressives' own the fascist/authoritarian haters".
Anyway, it appears you were the one who brought up fascist/authoritarian, which today is expressed through ICE, but in the past, it was the German Gestapo. Our rule by law is being shredded, and that puts the democracy of the US in as much danger as the Germans were when Hilter and his chosen people consolidated power in their hands, making it possible for the Gestapo to have poorly restricted power. This leds to terrible things being done to people who lost all legal protections.
I don't know, do we agree or disagree on this?
Yes, generalizing, categorizing, and the framework of prejudice are coping skills that become essential when the population is so large that we become strangers.
AI first goes into panic about "prejudice", but eventually explains how it improves our survival. What is important here is recognizing our limits and the need to get real about them, instead of denying our limits and beating ourselves and others up for not being better human beings.
The reality of unnaturally large populations makes prejudice necessary not only to protect ourselves, but also to conserve energy. Our brains do many things to help us conserve energy.
The way to cope with prejudice is by learning good manners and taking responsibility for acting on them. This is something @AmadeusD refuses to do, so I chose to avoid him. Rules greatly improve how we live on this planet with far more people than we can possibly know.
1. We respect everyone. It doesn't matter if the other is the mayor of a bum, or looks different.
2. We protect the dignity of others. (That is why social security is based on age, not need).
3. We do everything with integrity.
With those rules, what can go wrong?
So was the Gestapo just following orders. There are some good stories and movies coming out of that time in history. A fiction movie I really like is "The Reader". A woman who can not read is accused of a war crime. She could have proven she was not guilty but she was too ashamed to let people know she couldn't read so she kept that hidden. She became a good Nazi because that was the only way to get a good job. She obeyed orders without question because, like most Germans, she believed that her nation was in the right and a good nation, just as Americans believe in America. Also, she had no reason to question until a young man began reading to her and exposed her to a classical education. While this is fiction it is based on facts of the nature of things in that time in history, and I think we are in big trouble now because of replacing our education with the German model of education for technology.
We are now technologically smart but not wise.
There are important points here. Number 1, I do not see America as better than Germany. Humans are only human, and they want to believe their nation or their tribe is the best. We welcome news that makes us feel good and makes us think we are doing the right thing, and a small backward nation on the other side of the world is a threat to the US and must be bombed, destroying the lives of millions of people. Or so the Germans believed, and so do the Russians today.
If you all want to throw tomatoes at me for what I am saying, go ahead. So were the Germans only following orders, and what ICE is doing is not better than the Gestapo? We made it law so people opposed to war are not forced to fight in them. Vietnam and the following wars were wrong. Men and women are coming home from these wars traumatized and sometimes committing suicide in part because what they had to do was immoral.
I am not saying we should ignore immigration laws. I am saying we should be decent human beings and treat everyone decently. NEVER, EVER SHOULD CHILDREN BE TRAUMATIZED. NEVER SHOULD A HUMAN BEING BE HUMILATED BY FORCING THEM TO BE NUDE IN PUBLIC. LOOK AT OUR MORALS, AND WHEN ORDERS VIOLATE MORALITY, THAT IS A PROBLEM TO BE CORRECTED. The behavior of ICE is worthy of a country run by thugs, not a civilized nation. And for crying out loud, the US is not the only country with an immigration problem. This is a global problem, and it will require a global solution.
Who remembers the Peace Corps? John Kennedy was a wonderful leader, and I would do all in my power to get another leader like him.
Would you please address the issues instead of attacking me? Here is a presentation of the Gestapo issue. Know I am passionate about the wrongs that have led up to this moment in history, and my thoughts on this subject come from knowledge of the history of education. My grandmother defended democracy in the classroom. My mother sang for USO shows, and my father dealt with the piles of bodies in the death camps. If you want to argue the issues fine, but I expect you to do that respectfully and with honor for all those who died defending our democracy.
What the military oath of enlistment says about legal and ...
ABC News
https://abcnews.go.com › Politics › story
4 days ago — The call from Democratic veterans in Congress highlights the federal law that dictates the conduct of members of the military.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/pentagon-launching-review-democratic-sen-mark-kelly/story?id=127827953
I want to expand the understanding of the gestapo problem. I can't use AI, but I hope I can link to it.
The words that jump out at me are "without legal constraint". And "placing the secret police outside the traditional state and judicial oversight." I think that can be effectively done by firing everyone who disagrees with a leader, and putting in people who are 100% pleasing to the leader and are also unfit for the job. Like they are not opposed to the leader because they know enough to have good judgment.
Does anyone want to argue that Trump is not ruling as though he is above the law, and that he is not protecting his power by taking down everyone who opposes him? Is there any doubt he incited the attempt to take over the Capitol Building, and that he pardoned everyone found guilty of a crime and serving time that he could?
For some of us, the Athenian system of getting rid of tyrants was an important part of defending democracy.
A discussion of the difference between an oligarchic and democratic rule could be interesting.
We did not hire ICE to shoot people in the leg. In fact, some states what ICE to stay out and respect state sovereignty. Shooting people in the leg is against the law, and if our young people in ICE follow orders that should not be made, they can be charged with a crime. Trump's brutality was on display many years ago....
That is against the law, and so we come to arguing about if ICE and the Gestapo are that different. Forcing someone into the public nude, is wrong. Traumatizing children is wrong. What is the problem causing nice and civilized people to not see the wrong? How is this different from what happened in Germany?
You are a good person. I can see that. I don’t mean to sound like I am attacking anyone else, except maybe when I am atracking all of us, me included (if “attack” is even the right word).
I may disagree with your analysis, and your appraisal of certain facts.
But I do agree that we can no longer ignore immigration laws (totally agree). The world of civilized people (which is everyone who wants to join) can, if we want, settle our borders, and protect all our cultures.
We need to ignore those who want to destroy each other, make the peace, and then enforce it against those who keep destroying. Right?
Instead of picking on ICE agents, shouldn’t we figure out what their job should be, by writing better immigration laws, clarifying reasonable suspicion, facilitating due process, whatever we must to make borders and immigration rational? We don’t simultaneously fight our own law enforcement. Quite the opposite, local police should be working really closely with ICE, not against them, because they know where trouble is in their towns, and more importantly, where it isn’t. There are so many things we could do better.
No one wants to harm children or terrorize otherwise law abiding, hard working people - that is not anyone’s goal!.
And yes, this is a global problem. We do not know how to walk and chew gum. We don’t know how to protect our beloved cultures without hating someone else’s. That is the main struggle of history, both inside the tribe and among the many tribes. Muslims don’t know how to be Muslim in a liberal democracy of free men and women. Christians don’t know how to be saved without damning everyone else. Americans don’t know how to be proud and “first” without judging all others “third world” and over-exploiting opportunity. Poor people don’t know how to be grateful and content. Rich people don’t known how to be humble and charitable and sacrificial. Trump doesn’t know how to be strong, but not a bully. Righties don’t know how to be absolute, yet merciful and vulnerable. Lefties don’t know how to stand with the oppressed without oppressing and moralizing the “bad people” (or this group or that group….).
It is because all of us are too content to be divided up into our safe groups of victims, blaming the other groups for our own self-inflicted wounds. We love our precious misery. It feeds our cathartic anger, that we take out on our own brothers, who we should love, and instead allow ourselves to stomp on the immigrant or stomp on ICE.
And we refuse to learn anything.
Well, we’ve learned a lot, but that is just for yelling against each other - we haven’t learned how to actually do better, to build a true civilization, where justice is present for at least most of us.
I still don’t mean to attack anyone.
Many countries need to almost stop new immigration for some time, figure out how to offer amnesty even to millions of migrants who are currently in those countries illegally, find out if they want to stay, and be done with the framework. But even rich America can’t assume responsibility for the world’s poor indefinitely, so as borders open up again on solid ground the border can never look like Biden’s border ever again. This will cost everyone a lot (so we will wallow in hell and Hope shit works out….)
We need all countries to love their own identities and take responsibility for their own identities, clarify where the lines are, and clean this shit up. This means there are different laws in all of the different countries and when in Rome, we all assimilate as the Roman’s do. We don’t go somewhere to change it. It will change if it’s own, just like each who immigrates will be changed. Everyone, of course keeps their own heart and culture and religion, but everyone also makes room to find goodness and inspiration in the culture that welcomes you home, your country, or if an immigrant, your new country.
There are as many reasons for all of us to love each other as there are to hate each other.
We choose to find the reasons to hate. We don’t have to, but we do. Hating the other tribe is the easiest way to escape our own guilt for hating in the first place (“they are the haters and the evil ones!”) - we only hate other people and cultures out of our own weaknesses, and no one wants to admit they are weak.
We have made a complex problem for ourselves. We keep handing it down to the next generation. When will there be enough people who are brave enough to forgive past injustice, and heal, and claim justice instead for an actually better future we might participate in? The solution is not whether left or right is wrong; It’s in how both are inadequate without each other - something new, that carries with it the same good that was and is always there.
Thank goodness! I was wondering what in hell went wrong with a great discussion. I will get back to you as soon as I can. I think I have a broken foot, and I just learned that an urgent care place can X-ray my foot. I hope to get this done before washing dishes for a huge holiday crowd at a community center. If I don't get back soon, give me a holler.
Because, if you read a summary of what happened - they are totally different stories. This weird need to align Trump with Hitler is pathological (not you, specifically).
:lol: I woke up this morning thinking of the young lady who is flying somewhere with her mother. A reporter was at the airport, checking out people's opinions about proper clothing for a flyer. The rumor is that those who dress well are less likely to behave in an antisocial way. The young lady was wearing pajamas despite her mother's objection, and the mother was dressed to say, "I understand social values, and I dress and behave properly". The young lady thought only of herself and her own comfort.
I hope you wonder why I think that is related to ICE. This is not going to work if you do not wonder what in heck I am talking about, because what I am saying is totally different from anything you have thought. I will give you a hint. What I am saying is about cultural change that followed a change in education. I am talking about the consequences of replacing our domestic education, which was based on the Athenian model of education, with the German model of education for technology for military, and industrial purposes.
If anyone understands what I am saying, I will be surprised. I will give you a hint. I am talking about capitalism with no morals and the Military-Industrial Complex that Eisenhower warned us about, and what this has to do with cultural breakdown, and why Trump is popular, and what this has to do with my objection to ICE. All of this is equal to the young lady not giving a shit what her mother thinks is appropriate, or how her mother feels about being in public with a daughter wearing pajamas.
:lol: I live in apartment C4. I have been told that it is military code for explosives. Seeing that young girl not give a shit about her mother's feelings reminds me of when my daughter was in high school, and the popular opinion that education for technology would make our children smarter than their parents. There is some truth to that, but being smart at the expense of wisdom is not a good trade-off. In the 1970s, we declared a youth crisis. We did not suddenly have an explosion of unfit parents. We changed the purpose of education, and now our leader seems to be following Hitler's playbook. It is not this one man making the nation as it is. Is the change in the purpose of education. :lol: Maybe ICE can wear pajamas when they are flown to a city that does not want their presence.
That is a different thread. :grin: I put a video about capitalism in this thread "What Capitalism is Not (specifically, it is not markets)." What you said leads me to believe you never lost a lot of weight because you were not eating, so the children could be fed. I doubt if you stayed up all night holding a sick child because you couldn't afford to rush the child to the hospital. I don't know if economics is a philosophical issue, but democracy, as we know it, had roots in Athens, where the need to defend Athens led to giving everyone who fought in the war a degree of political power. This moment in time changed the people's understanding of the gods and cultural values. To clarify, political power is extremely important to our ability to provide for our families.
There was a time when the Muslims were far more advanced than Christian Europe. We owe them a huge debt for preserving knowledge that Christians had destroyed. I would love to chew on what Evangelical Christians and Orthodox Muslims share in common. I don't see a difference between them.
Trump's followers love him as he is. I have posted a video of Trump in the WrestleMania ring a few times. He intentionally displayed what a brute he can be to a cheering crowd. All those accusations of what this group and that group can not do, is WrestleMania mentality. When the US replaced its domestic education with education for military and industrial purposes, it replaced independent thinking with "groupthink". My grandmother would say, We teach children math to teach them how to think. New math does not have the same practical purpose. Education for college has cheated millions out of an education that benefits the families of the working class and the advancement of civilization.
Is it because there's some other thread that this discussion continued from that let it spiral down politics alone?
It seems to me that you asked for a more general question about "what we should think about". As in, what should a regular citizen in a democracy think about in their day to day life so that society addresses issues of the world and maintain a healthy morality in that society?
Topics that need to be thought about as a form of philosophical foundation of being in a society.
Is that the basis of the question here?
Please! We did not keep handing our problems down to the next generation. Our democracy comes out of the Enlightenment, and a belief that, as we learned more through asking questions and attempting to answer them with scientific and philosophical thinking, we could improve life on earth. Our education was based on the Greek and Roman models for independent thinking and good moral judgment.
But like the 200-year-old Athens, we won a major war, and we got too smart for our britches and too dependent on the economics that made the US rich during a time of war, because war made the other nations dependent on the US, until they recovered from the war. As happened to Athens, this led to a poorly thought-out military action and a growing dependence on military might. We have evolved as Athens evolved, and we did not avoid the mistake Athens made of making war on a defenseless island in a desperate attempt to maintain their wartime economy.
I am running out of time, but I still believe in the Enlightenment dream of a better world, and that education can make the difference. I also believe religion is the problem! The Germans who followed Hitler were Christians, and I am sure Jesus would not like ICE, but well-meaning Christians will support it just as they did in Germany. Germans reported on each other, as US citizens are being encouraged to report on each other, and Jesus plainly said, do not turn to Rome and report your neighbors. We all know the bible right? Depending on that one book, instread of knowledge in general, is much easier and don't worry, God is in control. :halo:
Ok you win. Religion is the problem and the enlightened ones like Mandani and AOC and Kelly are our only rational hope for a better world. I’ll tell everyone at Mass this Sunday not to read the Bible or hope in “God” anymore. Should help speed up the process towards utopia.
It’s been 300 years since the enlightenment. When do you think people will reason this out and we can all have affordable health insurance and free cocoa pebbles? Maybe as soon as Trump is ousted?
Athena wont talk to me, but I agree with your critiques. She seems to just float above the conversation she's trying to have. An odd approach.
In order to form a more perfect union, that does seem to be required. It sure would be nice to use the AI explanation of ancient Greek politics and its relationship to virtues. I think every city should have readily available information about the local resources and what decisions are necessary for the continued growth of the city. And maybe we should know on a national level our supply and rate of consumption of such things as oil, and what oil has to do with our banking and wars. All this concern about resources and rates of consumption is set off by a book about geology. Geology and geography do not seem to be required in our education system, and they are not a subjects of news stories.
It saddens me that I live in a nation that claims to fight evil and does so in the most evil way of destroying people's lives and their cities. And the citizens agree to this without knowledge. Socrates was very distressed when Athens lost the war with Sparta, and he wanted to know what Athens did wrong that caused them to lose the war.
On a more personal level. The homeless problem is getting increasingly frightening. Thanksgiving Day, my neighbors and I found another rent increase notices on our doors. Most of us are retired and have very low incomes. We are already in the least expensive apartment complex. There is no place for us to go. I am sure most citizens do not want us living on the streets. I think the purpose of democracy is to have a better union that protects people with planning and laws. How well do we understand the old people with walkers who struggle to cross the street, and why they are homeless? What does make America great again mean when we are looking more and more like the poor countries with beggars on the streets? We should kill the evil people on the other side of the world to defend this?
I am sorry. :broken: We have achieved more in 300 years than non-scientific people achieved in thousands of years. This is where I stop arguing with you because I do not like to argue with believers and trigger bad feelings.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/1024764
Welcome to Zarathustra's 'Motley Cow': IDIOTOPIA
Hu?
You said, "I had a laugh at the idea that the USA doesn't have a king. Those countries with titular kings managed to build limitations in to their political systems, usually for the king to act only on the advice of the parliament. The USA apparently thought that since their king was elected, they could give them more power. It's their undoing. European, and other monarchies, kept the king in a box; the USA actually removed restraint on the executive."
When was the restraint removed?
Well, for England, over a long and sometimes bloody history, from Magna Carta (1215) through the Civil War (1642–51) and the Glorious Revolution (1688), to the Bill of Rights (1689). For Japan, on January 1, 1946, at the request of the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers (SCAP), Emperor Hirohito issued an Imperial Rescript in which he publicly denied the concept of his divinity. Sweden limited the power of it's King in 1809 after a heavy defeat by Russia. The Danish Grundloven was established on 5 June 1849. Norway limited it's monarch with a new constitution in in 1814, by the Constitution of Eidsvoll.
When did the US do likewise?
The US constitution rejects monarchy but centralises executive power in a single office with weaker structural restraints than modern constitutional monarchies. From the mid-20th century onward, especially after 1945 and 2001, restraints on the president ceased to function effectively in practice.
1945 is when the world was in an economic collapse, and Franklin Roosevelt was the new president. At least one book warned of the dangers of the new powers taken on by Roosevelt. He did not just act with more power than any other president, but with the help of Hoover, these two men changed the bureaucratic order of the US in a very fundamental way. The US adopted the German model of bureaucracy, making the power of the US government much stronger than could have been before this change.
I would be ecstatic if anyone understood the importance of what I have said. That brings me to link about the quite rebellion. Nothing good can come out of our greatest efforts to alert the population about the destruction of their country when the people rely on "authority" and are incapable of understanding the importance of what someone is saying. The US became fascist when Roosevelt was in power, and because you all hold a problematic notion of what fascism is, and a false notion of what the US , no one even asks the right questions.
But that is okay, Trump might have destroyed the Military-Industrial Complex that the US has been since WWII. Things might get very interesting from here. If the US didn't replace its domestic education with the German model of education for technology, which destroys the citizens' defense of democracy, Trump would not be running the show now.
Bottom line, the US adopted its enemies' bureaucratic model that shifts power from the citizens to the government, and the model of education that goes with the fascist government. The US is now what its enemy was. Only when democracy is defended in the classroom is it defended. That is the only way to change the reality explained in 180 Proof's link.
The states that have encouraged their citizens to report their friends, neighbors, and family to the police if an effort to abort an embryo was made, are most certainly fascist. Jesus made it clear we should not turn to Rome to handle our human problems, but as the citizens in Germany did, the Evangelical Christians believe they are God's chosen people, and they should do the work of God because they can know the will of God by reading the bible and following their leader (chosen by God). These folks are very political, with their faith that they are God's chosen people, and God wants them to have the power to oppose evil. The tie between this Christianity and fascism is clear.
I can not copy-paste the excellent AI explanation of the mess the US is in now, but I can saythis is the result of replacing our domestic education that defended democracy in the classroom with the German model, which left moral education to the church, resulting in our failure to understand the connection between virtues and science in a democracy. Here is the link to what AI has to say about the split in Christianity that has led to fascism in the US. For those who want to argue with me about this education problem. https://www.google.com/search?q=god+and+fascism&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS990US990&oq=&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqCQgAECMYJxjqAjIJCAAQIxgnGOoCMgkIARAjGCcY6gIyCQgCECMYJxjqAjIJCAMQIxgnGOoCMgkIBBAjGCcY6gIyCQgFECMYJxjqAjISCAYQIxgnGOoCGN0FGJ0GGOgGMgkIBxAjGCcY6gLSAQkxNTUxajBqMTWoAgiwAgHxBRRa6xn67UPF&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
OMG, I usually ignore you and should probably stick with that, but Cheney and Bush Junior were not restrained in their efforts to secure the US effort to have military control of the Middle East. If you want to argue that point, begin by learning about the NeoCons and the American Project.
https://www.google.com/search?q=god+and+fascism&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS990US990&oq=&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqCQgAECMYJxjqAjIJCAAQIxgnGOoCMgkIARAjGCcY6gIyCQgCECMYJxjqAjIJCAMQIxgnGOoCMgkIBBAjGCcY6gIyCQgFECMYJxjqAjISCAYQIxgnGOoCGN0FGJ0GGOgGMgkIBxAjGCcY6gLSAQkxNTUxajBqMTWoAgiwAgHxBRRa6xn67UPF&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
That fits perfectly with the Evanicals self image and nationalism that is the result of the 1958 National Defence Education Act, strengthening Fascism in the US, and leaving our democracy undefined in the classroom, and gives US our Hitler.
Christians believe we are all, every single one (not just Jews and believes but all human beings), God’s children. God is Father. And brother. Your heart isn’t into Christianity, so why would think you could clarify what Christians believe to me, a thoughtful, practicing Catholic?
I hate seeing politicians invoke religion, and hate seeing the church be political and weigh in on public policy. Both institutions screw up everything when they muddle morality with polity. Th muddling effect is why people see maga and Muslims as wanting a caliphate, and why people see leftists as making politics their cult-like moral compass.
So you are not helping your political case at all by invoking what Christians believe.
Weren’t Newton and Galileo and many, many other builders of the science you seem to hold up so high, Christian? Why do you think there is something inherent about Christianity that is incompatible with science? If the two are actually compatible, then all anecdotal evidence of a Christian who was bad and that scientist or politician was better, are different conversations, and don’t necessitate the opinion that religion is a net oppressive and ignorance building force.
My conflict with Christians begins with loving the teachings of Jesus that I hold dear. I also enjoy the paganism that is a part of Christianity, and perhaps more so, Catholicism. And, I didn't argue with Christians until Cheney and Bush Junior and what they did with the US Military Industrial Complex. Some Christians opposed this, but way too many were thrilled by our illegal destruction of Iraq. Christians should have objected to Bush Junior using Christian rhetoric to promote his illegal war on Iraq and calling that our American "glory and power". Instead of Christians taking a strong stand against this, they are voting for another man who is taking advantage of Christians to promote his own power and glory. The problem is with the belief. There never was a god who told His people they are his favorites and as such he wants them to take land and kill everyone living on the land but this story has justified a lot of wrong.
I am so glad we share an agreement on this point.
What? Where should the questioning and arguing begin if not with the book that many believe is the word of God? I sure wish I could quote AI. More than once God told the Hebrews to take land and kill everyone. This god is a war god, and ever since these stories, Christians have justified their extermination of others with these Christian stories. The loving God Christians are worshipping today wasn't a loving god but a jealous, revengeful, punishing, and fearsome god, until our bellies were full.
You have to be Christian when Christians are in control. Christians were killing those suspected of not being one of them. With the Church's control of information, it is a miracle that Christian documents were not destroyed along with those daring to have non approved of thoughts. The church went through different periods of tolerance and intolerance. A discussion of Christianity needs to include history. Christianity does not have a good history.
The story of Adam (uncultivated plain) and Eve (Lady who makes live) and Eden (settlement on the plain) was a Sumerian story found in the Sumerian library of Ur and adjusted to fit the idea of one god by Abraham's people. The original story is as believable to me as the Hebrew story. But I like the Greek story of Pandora and the Box a whole lot better than the story of Adam and Eve. Pandora was warned not to open the gift from Zeus but she couldn't control her curiousity and when she opened the gift, the miseries flew out of the box, slowing down our mastery of technology. Zeus was right. We did learn all the technologies and we are now smart but wise and we have turned our backs on the gods.
Why do I think Christianity is incompatible with science? I know there are other creation stories and that it was a Sumerian goddess who made us of mud and blew life into us, so we could help the river stay in its banks. That just is not compatible with science. Our DNA comes from the line of anthropoids, not minerals of mud.
Oh, :chin: It is history that makes Christianity oppressive and an ignorant-building force. How many examples do you want? Do you believe a God favors us in wars? Do you believe a god of war is also a god of love? How about not washing our hands? Do you think that is good advice, or does it maintain superstition and ignorance? Like those who refuse vaccinations. India and China were way ahead of us when it comes to cleanliness and health. Adopting the demonology of Persia when the New Testament was written was not a step forward.
This is not to suggest I do not understand the concept of Christofascism. But uhh... that Google search being your 'source' for a claim which it does not support (and is a bloody Google search) is leaving me quite wanting, and futher assured of my views on your discussion inabilities.
Further, Bush and Cheney could have levelled the middle east. It is not credible to say they were not restrained. And believe me, I was extremely anti-Iraq and Bush in general. I burst into tears at work when Obama was elected. I just happen to not let my reason be driven by my hatred of those I disagree with.
You can go back to ignoring me. I speak for myself, not because I think you'll say something interesting.
The objection here is to the "we" in the title.
:snicker: What is wrong with that word? What is a better word?
And what was parochial about all the political stuff I said?
Why would you say our education system is fucked? What do you know about it, and what does education have to do with the culture and direction of a nation?
I don't think we are doing very well in the effort to have a meaningful discussion. Perhaps I am being insensitive to what the fuck is important to you? But I don't see your expression of what is important to you; I only see objections to what I have said.
Okay :grin:
Charlie Kirk pointed out that God thinks trans are abominations. Kinda worse to be hated by your dad than a stranger.
I am not having a go. Being accurate is really important when making accusations about people to support vilification (particularly in light of defending the idea that his speech was hateful).
–– Charlie Kirk
The congregation applauds.
He also, multiple times, stood up for minorities even against his own fans, spoke highly of all people as children of God. This speaks to delusion, as I'm not religious, ubt it is outright wrong to suggest that he, personally, had some moral issue with trans people tout court.
This is a genuine thing, not my suggesting something about you - if you're willing to see Charlie for what he actually was, and see his utterances in context and without specious commentary, you may find this interesting. It was one factor that made me realise my understanding of Kirk as hateful was woefully inaccurate. It is an analysis from a Christian perspective, which is important - but also from a Kirk critic (in his lifetim).
He also lied about the 2020 election being stolen.
1. Uhh, the claim is his personal view is that trans people are awful and shouldn't exist. This context puts paid to that egregiously stupid claim. It is incorrect. Given that we have several instances of Charlie defending minorities against his own followers, maybe you should reconsider the ridiculous caricature you seem to have in mind.
2. We've just found out that it may have been (well, that's dramatic - but certainly there's truck to some claims made back then). But I don't defend that - everyone says elections are stolen and it's always stupid. Russian influence etc... Plenty of people claim Trump stole both elections. Not serious people, to be sure (well, to my knowledge). This is wholly irrelevant to what's been said, though.
I suggest you make an effort to falsify your incorrect view on this person. I've provided one link.
I didn't say that Kirk was a racist, fascist, natzi, homophobe, transphobe, or claim that his personal view is that trans people are awful and shouldn't exist. I simply quoted him saying to a cheering audience:
That being the case, I don't know what relevance the Williams video has. Maybe projection? It's funny that Williams goes on and on about what he calls the "Newman effect" in the video but around halfway through he unwittingly demonstrates a glaring example of it himself. He reduces the Harvard admittance process to "melanin over merit," completely ignoring all admittance considerations beside academic metrics. No selective U.S. colleges use only academics and Harvard has always argued that academic metrics alone were not enough to fairly choose between many extremely highly qualified applicants. Also, if his concern is actually unfair college admittance practices, why can't I find him criticizing legacy admissions, donor preferences, athlete recruitment, or wealth-based advantages?
In the end of the video Williams says that he loves people who have more melanin than he does. Unfortunately it appears that that love is as shallow as his cheap "melanin over merit" slogan.
You have certainly made this claim, but i accept the others. I shouldn't have intimated you had.
Besides this, we are just going to go in circles bitching about how one another is incapable of honestly addressing things - for me, your take on the video, for instance. I imagine the same in reverse. Let's just leave it aside :) I thought your "sexistential" quip was 10/10 btw. Good job.
P.S: If you do truly want to try to get the bottom of any of this/understand what hte reasoning is for a claim, do feel free to continue through PMs. That seems to be working for me on this more contentious issues.
Watch the video again. Williams completely ignores all admittance considerations beside academic metrics. He reduces the Harvard admittance process to the shallow slogan "melanin over merit."
No worries, mate, I'll walk you through it and explain it as simply as I can. If you still don't understand DM me and I'll try to help further.
I wouldn't normally watch the Williams video again but I was doing zone 2 training on a spin bike when I read your message so I figured why not.
Where we started is with you responding to my quoting Kirk's comment about trans being an abomination to God. You wrote:
Quoting AmadeusD
Kirk deadnamed (very offensive and he knew it was offensive) a trans athlete and said that they are an abomination to God. He didn't say that God loves that person, he said that they're an abomination to God, which means that God is disgusted by them and hates them. That's what 'abomination' means.
His audience cheered appreciatively at these remarks.
You say that Kirk loved people regardless of what he thought of their choices and lifestyles. How could you possibly know the heart of another person? Have you even met Kirk?
I did a search for "Did Charlie Kirk ever say that he loved transgender people?" and couldn't find anything. If he loved them regardless of their choices and lifestyles then why didn't he say it? That would have been really powerful, and it would have shown a loving spirit. He would probably have lost a lot of his audience and income, but it would have shown a loving spirit.
As I mentioned, I took another look at the Williams video and it's even worse the second time around. The first time I missed where he was defending Kirk saying that Michelle Obama and other black women "do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously. You had to go steal a white person’s slot to be taken somewhat seriously… It’s very obvious to us that you were not smart enough to be able to get in on your own. I could not make it in on my own, so I needed to take opportunities from someone more deserving."
Michelle Obama graduated salutatorian from High School, Got a BA at Princeton, and then received her Juris Doctor (JD) from Harvard Law School. After graduation she was a lawyer at a top-tier international law firm before moving on to public service.
Kirk was a community college dropout and he's criticizing her intelligence?! Williams defends what Kirk said, saying that it was Kirk's opinion, and he then tries to support Kirk's opinion.
Williams academic and work career also pales sharply in comparison to Michelle Obama's.
I've mentioned how Williams demonstrates what he calls the "Newman effect" in the same video he criticizes it. I suppose he gets away with it because he knows that his audience will not be critical of anything he says.
Anyway, again, if any of this is unclear just DM me and I'll see if I can help.
LOL. Tbc, I am joking with both of these next lines as it seemed you were:
Thought we agreed to avoid each other? The condescension is a nice touch too ;)
Please bear in mind here, we're both on the "non Charlie" side of life. I do not, and did not, enjoy his rhetoric and tendency to become what would be called unprofessional at times.
I'm merely trying to sort out unfair charges (in my view). In this case, fairly egregious and used to support justifications for absolutely disgusting stuff like being ambivalent to his murder (or pretending his activities were anywhere in the same universe as his murder).
Well, you've shot yourself in the foot here I think. I'll explain that and then walk you through the rest (see? Nice touch).
Quoting praxis
Have you? How could you know his heart? yet you've claimed to know both his, and his followers hearts apparently. You now seem to reject that, but the consistency is a huge problem. For me, I take his words at face (see below). For what it's worth, No, i have not met Kirk - but i have, at least, listened to him outside of manipulative sound bites. You, self-admitted, have not (has this changed? Important if so). This makes it extremely hard to understand why you think you have a clue about this stuff beyond a 'impression'. Lets run through why.. (other than the obvious - you are uninformed by definition in this case). So, now that the (unintentional, i'm sure) hypocrisy is writ large, let's go through where you're simply factually wrong:
Kirk said, multiple times, God loves all people specifically talking to his detractors, or those he personally disagrees with. Here's another example, albeit I need to explain this one: There is a viral clip (i'm sure you'll be able to find it) in which a trans women (from memory) comes up to Kirk at one of his campus events and asks for advice (in good faith). Kirk responds in good faith and is quite emphatic that this person is loved, deserves respect and support - just not the support you would choose. He was extremely clear about this. If you continue to deny it, I will just ignore it becuas its counter to reality.
Quoting praxis
That's true, and an extremely awkward wording which does not sit with his personal beliefs. See how that works? He outlined the Biblical position, which is juxtaposed directly with his personal belief that God loves everyone and he was frequently vocal about that (there's also, though this is offtopic, tension between God and Jesus despite them being hte same guy. Fucking Bible). You are caught up on a matter which is trivial in the large discussion, uninformative and is honestly kind of a red flag in terms of your ability to see things clearly. You are holding on to a concept that seems both unimportant, and wrong about Kirk (rather than his take on the Bible).
Quoting praxis
He did. That you didn't find it in your search says potentially three things:
1. You aren't quite across how best to search specifics (no shade - most people aren't. I am trained in this due to legal work);
2. You ignore/avoid that which you're looking for in service of continuing an erroneous line of claim (I presume not, out of good faith); or
3. It is difficult, because of the biases at Google or whatever, to find information directly relevant - I've found this to be the case and it was proven, somewhat. Assuming these are accurate, it would be compounding on your resistance to accepting the (hypothetical) that Kirk didn't hate trans people. That's fair to think (particularly your insistence on using that one, context-less clip as support. It does push one that way - no shade. I'm just showing reasons you wont have found these things which clarify and contextualise).
I don't know which is true, but you have missed several crucial items. Two given above ( if you care, DM me I'll find the specific clips I'm talking about - unfortunately, even great search skills wont pull up instagram clips, partially due to the above but partially due to saturation of click-baity things creating supreme amounts of noise in search terms - But those clips lead us to their 'parent' sources, so just giving some lay of the land).
Quoting praxis
Yeah, I totally agree particularly in light of what you're taking from him prima facie. The thing is, he did. He did show a loving spirit. Constantly. You have admitted that you do not, and have not, made any effort to go through his material besides biased clips(pending above question on this). Do you really think its reasonable to think you have a line on Kirk's beliefs in this case? the answer is that you do not. You don't even have the resources to hand to intimate such. You have only the pre-prepared clips and attitude to come the conclusion you have. I could be wrong, but I am at least well-informed.
Quoting praxis
Careful - this one was extremely specific and has been broadly cut to make it look racist. It was about specific people - and not becuase they were black, but because DEI is not a good way to hire people. That much is true, but I was also uncomfortable with that exchange. However... You're making a gross, gross mistake:
Quoting praxis
None of this says much about intelligence. I think Kirk was wrong, anyway, so we're not arguing there. But his point, and it's a good one, is that credentialism is bogus. I know plenty of lawyers. Top flight lawyers. KCs; judges and general practitioners. Some are the dumbest people I've met in my life. I know judges who you would not believe were judges, given their inability to apply general logic or remove their emotional outbursts from their opinions. I am not decrying Michelle Obama. I am saying that his point was sound - he was probably talking to the wrong person. But I don't know Michelle Obama. I've seen her say some utterly batshit crazy stuff that makes me think she's probably not all that intelligent. Her degrees and job don't have a lick to do with this.
Quoting praxis
There's nothing wrong here. Not sure what you're getting at. Being a college drop out has nothing to do with intelligence. In fact, you could argue Kirk was more intelligent to drop out given the life he was able to lead after doing so. For him, that was an extremely good move. The fact he got killed has nothing to do with it - a crazy person shot him for his views. Not interesting or relevant to the intelligence issue.
Williams is talking about hte Newman effect as a tool critics use - assuming the worst in others.
You're doing that right now. He did not. I'm unsure what you wanted there.
P.S on the issue of deadnaming: I don't give a fuck. Deadname whoever you want. It isn't interesting to me. People call me shit I don't like all the time. There's a specific, identity-driven reason for this but it's a bit personal. I can tell you, I know what the fuck being deadnamed is like and how it feels. I seriously doubt you have a concept of it other than being told what to do. Kirk is more than welcome to say "I don't not believe you are a woman, and so I will refer to you as a man. Your name as a man was "x" and so I'll use that".
You disagree, clearly. That's fine. But it isn't an argument.
The story is that Kirk was killed because he spread hate, and we might assume perceived hatred towards transgender people was particularly egregious to Kirk’s assassin, being that he had a trans lover. So to me the quote I’m caught up on seems quite significant.
Williams, btw, said in the video that he reviewed hundreds of clips of Kirk searching for offensive things Kirk may have said and he didn’t mention the transgender abomination thing. That’s telling.
Quoting AmadeusD
:lol: If he did it would be easy to find.
Yeah, that's roughly the story. It might have been. But if that person was thinking along the same lines you are, are we surprised? You are predestined to justify reactionary irrationality because you've bought the biased media narrative about Kirk. it is trivial, and that's the problem with why he was killed. It was a trivial issue, and yet some mentally unstable weirdo shot him over it. Just denounce it already lmao.
Quoting praxis Which weakens the video, but its best to be accurate. He didn't mention that becuase he was responding to a person claiming God loves trans people and trans people are covered in the Bible to dunk on Kirk's religious affiliation. He obliterated that claim without giving a personal opinion. That this isn't clear tells me you've not seen more than the six seconds you're relying on. That he knows the person was wrong about the bible and, yes, was a dick about it, doesn't really tell me anything except he's vehemently religious.
Quoting praxis
*sigh*. I have (there is a correction to your inference here below) given you ample explanation why you might not have found it - I am beginning to think its mostly on you, though.
You have manipulated that exchange. Here's what you said:
Quoting praxis
He routinely said he loves everyone. Are trans people not people?
Besides this, I've given two examples and have invited you to ask for the clip described. I see you are not quite willing to be honest about this now that I've begun presenting the evidence for my claims. Okay, but that's not very fun.
Would, if you see it, the clip of him speaking directly to a trans student, claiming to love, support and want the best for them, that change anything for you?
I would be fascinated to hear what you think loving everyone means, if you’re able to take the question seriously.
I love everyone. That doesn't mean I like everyone, accept their choices or think their self report is accurate. "tough love" is a real thing - I will not lie to someone i love, and I don't care much that its discomforting to them to tell the truth (and in Kirk's mind, tihs is what he was doing..so..)
I have two children. You can't play that game :lol: (this, should be clearly in jest).
Edit: This is bordering on fun again.
This may be hard for you, but pretend one of your kids is trans and you're at some function with a bunch of people and some person on stage with a microphone points to your kid and says in front of everyone you're an abomination to God.
What would you do? I would want to hurt that person. I wouldn't actually punch the person, but I would give them a piece of my mind. Do you think that's weird? And if the person said, "but I love everyone!" that wouldn't make me feel any better.
If you can’t say anything about it that appears to mean it’s basically meaningless to you—just empty words.
Quoting AmadeusD
Okay, that’s one meaningful indicator of what it means to love everyone—you don’t lie.
If you check with politifact or some other fact checking organization there are many instances of claims made by Charlie Kirk that are judged to be false. Just typical MAGA stuff like about the 2020 election, Covid, climate change, etc. There is often a gap between political rhetoric and objective fact, to put it mildly, and it's obvious that Charlie was fully immersed in the game of politics—worse, MAGA politics.
No heavy judgment, but if loving everyone means not lying, well, Charlie's love seems to have been rather shallow.
Do you lie? Just from your last couple of posts…
Quoting AmadeusD
Where have I claimed that?
Quoting AmadeusD
I'm justifying ambivalence to his murder and pretending that his quote about trans abomination is as morally wrong as his assassination?
Quoting AmadeusD
I admitted to watching the godawful Williams video that you suggested I watch. I admitted to suffering through it twice, in fact.
Quoting AmadeusD
He was supporting Kirk's claim that Michelle Obama and other black women [i]"do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously,"[/I] etc. That seems to be assuming the worst in them. He did not try to show their lack of intelligence, he just took it for granted.
Quoting AmadeusD
I am?
Quoting AmadeusD
What follows after because is an indecipherable word salad. The truth is you don't know why he didn't mention it, right?
Anyway, if you and Kirk love everyone that means you love people who, for instance, rape and murder innocent children. That seems deranged. But I can see it to be true on a spiritual or transendent level, and also perhaps on a theological level.
Was Charlie spiritually or theologically advanced?
From what I could find he had no formal religious training, just sort of a DIY Bible guy. He didn't even belong to any particular congregation, and it's unclear if he even went to church regularly. And as I mentioned, his academic career consisted of a short time at community college.
In this light, isn't it rather self-aggrandizing to say that you love everyone—that you're so spiritually advanced that you can transcend the conventional world of good and evil?
No, I wouldn't, and I cannot understand why you would, for several reasons (though, I don't find it weird. Giving opinions is natural response when they're coming up against each other, so not judging your position there):
Firstly, I am not religious. What's being claim is illegitimate to me. In any case, the context made it incredibly clear Kirk was not vilifiying a trans person, personally. If that's the premise you're operating on, we can drop it. It goes no where.
Secondarily, what the fuck do I care about a random person saying this? Unless the person was someone I actually trusted and (personally) loved - and seemed to be putting my child at risk - I cannot see why I would expend energy on this. That seems bizarre and perhaps the root of much emotional nonsense in the modern world. Stop trying to police random people's thoughts and feelings (this requires that the next response is apt, so hang tight).
Thirdly, if my kid went up and spoke to someone who is (at least portrayed as..) transphobic, how is it possible the fault is with the person my child went and antagonized in some way? My job is to teach my child to either put up with their decisions, or not go into spaces they already determine might be harmful to them. We do this with non-trans kids. And trans kids are (well, probably aren't a real thing in the sense meant here) aren't special in this way.
Fourth, that's their right. Plain and simple.
Fifth my job is to help my kid, not hurt other people. If you think otherwise, we live in different worlds.
Given the context, your final little bit doesn't seem relevant - a wider look at Charlie's views and interactions with people make it quite clear his intent (quite important) is not to villify. Believe it or not (genuinely - not me telling you its true regardless - just saying, that's my take whether or not you believe those interpretations).
Quoting praxis
This sentence does not make sense. If you could rephrase I could reply a bit more directly, but on it's face it looks like all you're doing is trying to say that there's an ulterior meaning (or, esoteric anyway) and that I'm wrong to take it at face value. Rejected on first principle grounds.
Quoting praxis
Generally, maybe. But that is an absolute leap imo and not something I'm willing to take as a tenet. because there are counter-examples - but again, generally, yes, cool. Hopefully not a big spanner here.
Quoting praxis
Hmm. This is odd. Making a false claim is not lying; it's being wrong. Some of those are in contention anyway. But this doesn't speak to his claim to love everyone. This is just you assuming he willfully said false things. Very different claims, I think. You seem inordinately obsessed with propping up your beliefs about Charlie on demonstrably bad reasoning and factually inaccurate claims - can I ask why you're motivated to do this?
Quoting praxis
The reference here is to another thread, and in that thread, I variously quoted two examples these (Thread is closed - quote from you is "Oh right, Kirk and his followers think trans should exist. What reality are you living in?"
"A bigot like Kirk didn’t merely think trans are wrong or misguided as you mistakenly suggest; he consider them abominations. It's not just 'you are wrong,' but 'you should not exist.'"
You have directly claimed this at least twice and from what I see in the thread, one at least, is after I provided you with information which should have stopped you from making this claim, even if you have an internal commitment to it. There is no evidence of such. That is required.
Quoting praxis
If you could point out where I charged you with that, it would be helpful. GIven we're discussing honestly, I would want a direct response to that. Irony looms large my friend.
Quoting praxis
Jesus. You still don't see your own arse in the mirror do you?
Quoting praxis
He didn't assume anything. He commented on what he sees in their actual effect in the world (and to be clear, specific Black women who he (rightly or wrongly - this is extremely important) acknowledge were DEI-derived hires. I don't have the knee-jerk to DEI hires Charlie had, but on those grounds there is actually no good reason to reject what he's said which has been clipped to hell to sound racist which it demonstrably was not), and their actual, let's call them failings to be charitable. He did not, arbitrarily claim anything there. This is exactly what the next response is about...
Quoting praxis
Obviously.
Quoting praxis
That you appear to choose not to understand English in situations that it wouldn't be helpful for your position, isn't my problem. Feel free to have a go. I'm not judging you for that, but i am for this reply.
Quoting praxis
That is roughly what is meant by the phrase "I love everyone". You seem to have solved your own problem here by finally acknowledging the actual intent and meaning of something someone else has said. That is good.
I love everyone on this exact level - we're all human, we're all fallible. It doesn't mean (as i've already made explicitly clear) that I agree with anything the person has done or said. I think you're bigoted. But that doesn't mean I don't love you on that same level. Clear enough?
Quoting praxis
Hard to tell, given that's an almost meaningless thing to be - but I acknowledge what you're getting at. He wasn't a scholar, although, i'd suggest he had a better understanding of Biblical matters than the majority of American xtians. Speculation, to be sure.
Quoting praxis
I can't understand the question. It's just a vibe that people who understand the plight of the human race tend to take on. There's nothing 'advanced' about noticing that we're all human. I also suggest: Try taking 3 dried grams of psilocybin and not coming out with that as an extremely strong motivator for at least the short-term. It's the opposite of self-aggrandizing. And for Charlie, someone who routinely vilified himself, it seems a wilfully stupidity to suggest this - but i admit, I may not understand why you're asking given the lead-up doesn't do anything for it.
Well, personally, I wouldn’t make false claims—claims that politifact or others could easily debunk—to people I love.
Quoting AmadeusD
Michelle Obama has never acknowledged that she was a DEI hire. Why would she if she never was?
Quoting AmadeusD
I’m sure it makes sense to you.
Quoting AmadeusD
:lol: Agreed.
Quoting AmadeusD
Deadnaming someone and telling them they’re an abomination to God is just a vibe too—a hateful vibe.
That has nothing to do with what we're talking about here, though. If you can admit he was stupid, not lying, then we're good.
Quoting praxis
No, please read a bit more clearly: "On the grounds that". This means, taking that person's position on board and considering it from that perspective. I essentially agree with you, although she wasn't hired at all anyway just came along for the ride. I think she's said some absolutely god awful, stupid, indefensibly false shit over the years - but she wasn't even hired, so you're right to push that (and as I said, I don't take Kirk's position anyway). Charlie considered that to be hte case, and responded in that context. Again, can easily be called dumb or reactive for this, and probably should be. But its not lying or any other kind of bigotry.
Quoting praxis
If it makes sense, it makes sense. It can't make sense to me and not you :) It can just either be senseless, or misread.
Quoting praxis
Very, extremely, disagreed. But i have a feeling you are someone who thinks deadnaming someone is "violence" and I genuinely think its trivial (and no, I am not ill-informed about hte claims from certain kinds of trans people about this issue - I just have my own views and don't swallow personal claims at face value, generally) so there is probably too much daylight between us. As i've noted before, I do not give a flying fuck about deadnaming. I get deadnamed all the time. I simply couldn't give a shit. And my view is anyone who does make a big deal of it is doing themselves a mischief. If your identity is disturbed by being called Dan, that's not my problem. I can only give my own views (although, those of my trans friends mirror mine - they get on with their lives)
How do you know he didn’t lie? Stupid people lie.
Quoting AmadeusD
I told you that after graduating from Harvard she was hired a top international law firm. She’s had other positions as well.
Quoting AmadeusD
Right, it’s an example of the “Newman effect.”
Quoting AmadeusD
So you’re as callous as Kirk.
Yeah, that's absolutely true but we do not assume someone is lying at face value - in this case, particularly because he was clearly bent to believe shit that couldn't possibly be well supported. But, his beliefs are not my thing to comment on the motivations for, if you see what I mean.
Quoting praxis
Of course; I am aware. That isn't what Kirk, or I was talking about. Man. This is getting tough.
Quoting praxis
No. That is a purposeful activity. Something done directly to Kirk, including throughout your posts. Again, getting tough lol.
Quoting praxis
No. You just have an opinion derived from false understandings of what's been said, ignorance of my actual experience (which I've laid out) and ignorance of the views of plenty of trans people (the wrong kind of trans? LOL).
I think probably this has run it's course but thank you for remaining entirely civil these last few exchanges. Appreciate it.
The following sounds rather callous to me.
Quoting AmadeusD
You don't care about plenty of things I find extremely important. I don't find those situations to be you expressing callousness - I find we have different values and operate along different sets of information which largely, isn't our faults.
Calling someone a name (an actual name, not an epithet) they don't like/want to be called is trivial. You disagree. That's fine.
Charlie Kirk deadnamed deliberately and in a demeaning way and it functioned socially like an epithet. His audience loved it though and cheered appreciatively.
You don't give a shit – that's why we've been arguing this for weeks. :lol:
This is why i said I think it's run its course. You seem to finally admit that I am not defending maliciousness, but could simply be wrong, and I'm understanding that you see things in ways I cannot fault, but I think are wrong. Can't see us getting further.
I don't know what you're doing, so many of your statements are contradictory. The most glaring example of late is that you say the trans abomination comment is trivial but treat it in a way that is anything but trivial. We literally have been talking about it for weeks.
Kirk catered to his audience, and they enjoyed him deadnaming and claiming that Thomas was an abomination to God. Like you, I imagine that Kirk also didn't give a shit. He was being their culture warrior and putting bread and butter on the table.
Because you continually made something of it which was erroneous, and asked me, continually, to explain myself. This isn't something I picked up on as important. I responded to your sticking on it for so long. I saw the comment as i currently see it, more or less when I first saw the clip. Never seemed interesting. There's no contradiction in my responding to you banging on about a single thing he said one time which you misinterpreted.
As to the remainder, you've literally just done it again. I've addressed all of this, extremely clearly, and it is now pretty much unavoidable to conclude that you're just wanting to pain people certain ways, facts be damned. Again, thank you for remaining civil.
Facts be damned? What facts have I damned?
Speaking of facts…
Quoting AmadeusD
I just reviewed our posts in this thread. A month ago I posted the disgusting Kirk quote—not responding to you but someone else—and you rushed in to defend it, like you did in another topic. If it’s trivial then why bother to defend it so earnestly for weeeeeeks?
*sigh* mate, you're asking me to re-state things stated several times, as they've come up. That is not any of fair, reasonable or good faith. One example is your claim that Kirk and his followers personally wanted trans people to cease existing. I proved you wrong. Yo ignored it. There are more, and if you've reviewed the thread, then you know what im talking about.
Quoting praxis
I didn't call it trivial - your response to it, hanging your entire thesis on it after being proven wrong in multiple other avenues and your absolute refusal to admit hte reality of it became central to my attempt to have you respond honestly about someone you didn't know, and refuse completely to engage with in anything close to good faith.
It is trivial in a larger, mature conversation. You don't seem able. I have tried to close this off on civil comments several times, and you are incapable. I am happy to respond to you as long as you are saying things that can be coherently replied to, but I will suggest, again, that this has run its course. You sincerely believe what you believe, despite this thread. You probably think the same.
Explain to me the worth of continuing?
Frankly, entertainment.
Quoting AmadeusD
To call something an abomination is to suggest it should be rejected, erased, or undone, not merely regulated or punished. Something that is believed to be so wrong, corrupt, or unnatural that its existence itself is offensive. Not just “bad” or “harmful,” but ought-not-be.
That's a fact.
Quoting AmadeusD
Ah, I see. It is apparently extremely significant when conversing with me though. It's odd that you take immature conversation so seriously. I think I'm the other way around, taking mature conversations seriously and usually find immature conversations trivial.
So, trolling. So be it. I did suggest similar things time and time again. This is unbecoming.
Quoting praxis
You are forgetting the entirety of hte exchange and reverting back to default mode where you were proved factually wrong, lied about something you said you didn't say and then plum ignored both instances while continuing to press on his use of abomination in a specific context in which he was not giving his personal view. This is quite simple: You are not being serious anymore.
Quoting praxis
You kept talking about it. This is twilight zone stuff buddy. You're lying about what can be plainly read in the thread you're in.
Quoting praxis
You may think this, but your behaviour throughout this thread has been to avoid admitting where you were wrong, poisoning wells, making sweeping claims about other people's minds, refusing to look at long-form examples of hte person you're lambasting and - it seems - actively trolling.
You don't come across like you're a very serious person, and it's not all that surprising. It would have just been easier for you to say you found this entertaining a long time ago, rather than being blatantly dishonest for pages.
I see Mikie found his way back into following me around, and it's not surprising. Both yourself and Questioner seem to have his same pattern of posting.
Being entertained by a discussion doesn't imply trolling, obviously.
Quoting AmadeusD
What is that supposed to mean, that he wasn't giving his personal view? I don't think that I ever claimed he was expressing his personal view. He said:
He is apparently giving God's point of view. Though it should probably be taken into consideration that he was a follower of God, and being so inclined to adopt God's point of view. But as we've discussed, like you, I imagine he didn't really "give a shit" and he was simply catering to his audiences appetites ––being their culture warrior –– and making a tidy income in that role.
Quoting AmadeusD
Indeed, I've always thought that show was quite [i]entertaining[/I].
Quoting AmadeusD
You admit it's "twilight zone stuff," which means that you don't know what's going on. I suggest that your belief about my dishonesty is mistaken.
Quoting AmadeusD
How many times do I need to watch that ridiculous Williams video? :lol:
Kirk was clearly a smart guy, but I didn't realize how uneducated he was or how little religious training he seems to have had. I saw a video of him speaking with Jordan Peterson where he said how he vigorously studied business and economics. That tracks.
Quoting AmadeusD
I claimed somewhere that it wasn't entertaining?
Quoting AmadeusD
Huh? You jumped in to defend Kirk in this topic. If anything you followed me here.
And are you suggesting that I'm Questioner? Hey @Questioner are you me?