|
goddamnedtwisto posted:I mean when you're dealing with a political discourse that calls the Heritage Foundation's "solution" to the healthcare problems with the US "socialism" (and calls liberals communists) you're fighting an uphill battle. Sure, I agree. On the other hand I legitimately think the way Americans regularly and carelessly butcher their own language, especially as it pertains to politics, is one of the main reasons regular people keep getting duped into voting against their own interests. Ie. they are literally unable to articulate either their interests or the actual policy platforms of the political parties. I'm aware that this is a deliberate strategy by the Republicans (see Frank Luntz for example), but the rest of you are more than happy to go along with it. I mean, Americans even use the word liberal wrong for fucks sake.
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2018 10:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 11:24 |
|
|
Defenestration posted:This is a common misconception. Socialism is not "when the government provides services" or "when a central government controls everything" its a system in which the workers own the means of production. Among 19th century working class and social reform movements in Western Europe there were three main schools; the cooperative movement, who sought bottom-up building of worker controlled industries, the radicals, who sought massive electoral reform for the common people, and the socialists, who sought a more managerial top-down approach to achieving those goals through technocratic means. They were 'socialist' in contrast to the focus on 'individualism' of their contemporary liberals, believing that you couldn't have a scientific approach to improving the condition of the working class by obsessive focus on individual choice. It's worth noting that many of the early socialist projects like board schools, municipal sanitation, council houses, etc. were not controlled by the central government at all, they were managed at the level of the commune or municipal corporation or equivalent.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2018 12:49
|
|
|
It is, essentially, entirely possible to arrive at many good programs in the vein of the welfare state out of the belief that you do not have the ability to effect internationalist proletarian revolution against the bourgeoisie and thus, perhaps we can use what tools we do have access to, to put the common product of the worker to use in their service. By skimming it off the top of the booj and reinserting it at the bottom with public programs. And sure it's counterrevolutionary in that it's decelerationist and there are some people who believe you can actually salvage capitalism in the long run with it, but the alternative is simply not providing those programs and letting people eat poo poo in the hopes that it makes everything better somehow. Which is not a position I think will get you very far in life.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2018 14:34
|
|
|
Wasn't Marx's whole point that socialism was just another stage in the evolution of society and that in the end, it will be some kind of socialism/capitalism hybrid that will be the best in the end?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 18:22
|
|
|
totalnewbie posted:Wasn't Marx's whole point that socialism was just another stage in the evolution of society and that in the end, it will be some kind of socialism/capitalism hybrid that will be the best in the end? I’m fairly certain this is not a correct reading of Marx lol. Also post email forwards or Facebook esque content, nerds.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 18:26
|
|
|
Julio Cruz posted:Socialism always fails, so if something fails it must have been socialism. QED. Today I learned that Trump's administration is socialism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 18:31
|
|
|
Astrofig posted:Today I learned that Trump's administration is socialism. They haven't failed while they're still in the White House.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2018 18:50
|
|
|
Frightening Knight posted:I’m fairly certain this is not a correct reading of Marx lol. Yeah, I'm not sure where I read that from. Though he talk about evolution of social societies - it just so happened that after socialism was communism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2018 01:46
|
|
|
 Subtitled "Stop using Jesus to promote theft" Christian libertarians are the worst. (Not Christian anarchists, they own)
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2018 10:38
|
|
|
^^ Man, that is just at the cusp of realizing something, and then it swings wide. Very, very wide. Astrofig posted:Today I learned that Trump's administration is socialism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2018 14:01
|
|
|
Wasn't... Jesus arrested basically because the roman government and local religious leaders didn't like him poo poo stirring? Which was an entirely legitimate reason for him to be arrested at the time because lol rome? Like you can disagree with what he did being a crime but you can't really say he didn't do it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2018 17:02
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Wasn't... Jesus arrested basically because the roman government and local religious leaders didn't like him poo poo stirring? Which was an entirely legitimate reason for him to be arrested at the time because lol rome? He pissed off the local religious govt in the Sanhedrin. The Romans could give a gently caress about that as long as he was not riling up the Zealots to revolt. Because is real was a known problem child, the Roman dude just grants the local religious govt their execution cause he can't be bothered to try and fight for some weirdo prophet and to try and get on the good side of the locals.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2018 17:18
|
|
|
If you treat the Bible account as history: the local Jewish leaders had him arrested for blasphemy, the Roman governor interviewed him and found no problem, but the leadership complained so the governor shrugged rather than piss them off further, and sent him off for crucifixion. There's a lot more political intrigue involved. Blasphemy was a capital offense in Judaism, but since Israel was a Roman colony at the time, the colonial government had to approve of any capital sentences. Getting rid of an unorthodox religious zealot and getting the hated oppressors to sign off on it seemed like a win-win for the people Jesus had pissed off. Edit: Beatennnnnnn, but your post says "is real" which is even better.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2018 17:19
|
|
|
Jesus very explicitly and on multiple occasions tried to explain that he wasn't that kind of king.  I wonder if they'd be ok with me barging into their churches to "restore them to their original function." I promise to use only the methods (and tools) that Jesus did!
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2018 17:24
|
|
|
Lol leaving it
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2018 17:26
|
|
|
That was sort of my impression but I wasn't sure if/howmuch of it was made up by antisemites and I haven't read a proper bible. I know the romans did that whole semi-self-governing thing where the governor basically just has to keep the money coming in and the rebellions down.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2018 17:29
|
|
|
That's pretty much the story as told in the Bible and there is not much reason to think it's that far off, if you accept the idea that some dude named Jesus existed and raised a ruckus around 33. It's possible the real person (if they existed) was actually agitating for revolt and that got whitewashed by history but that seems unlikely to me since the procession of events makes sense. Prophet arises, pisses off local religious leaders, secular govt ain't give a drat but cynically lets them get lynched cause it's too much effort otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2018 17:34
|
|
|
Yeah I don't think there is any other record besides the Bible, because at the time Jesus (if he existed) was just some unremarkable prophet who was executed among a sea of people getting executed by Rome and mystic prophets preaching in Judea
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2018 17:45
|
|
|
Wait, I thought Jesus tried to make it seem like he's planning a revolt? Or is that 'go buy 2 swords but no more' thing not really in there?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2018 17:47
|
|
|
Zanzibar Ham posted:Wait, I thought Jesus tried to make it seem like he's planning a revolt? Or is that 'go buy 2 swords but no more' thing not really in there? The problem is the gospels contradict. While the broad strokes are the same the specific details are different. Jesus was a lot more militant sounding in the other gospels but John, the last written one, introduces a lot more pacifistic Jesus. Given that Jesus is non-existent in secular accounts I'm willing to believe it was a local squabble rather than trying to overthrow the romans.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2018 18:11
|
|
|
Zanzibar Ham posted:Wait, I thought Jesus tried to make it seem like he's planning a revolt? Or is that 'go buy 2 swords but no more' thing not really in there? He really only needed one sword. It was important to prophecy that he be arrested for insurrection and travelling in a group while armed absolutely forced the Romans to act.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2018 18:11
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2018 18:30
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:He really only needed one sword. It was important to prophecy that he be arrested for insurrection and travelling in a group while armed absolutely forced the Romans to act. Yeah that story in-context was a political/religious ploy, but if you ask most Evangelical Christians today about the point of that story, they'll say "Well, Jesus isn't just some feminine pacifist and tells his followers to buy swords, and really if you think about it the modern-day equivalent of a sword is an AR-15, sooooooo"
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2018 21:04
|
|
|
I'm gonna throw this out there: people who hit their kids do it because they want to. Alternatively, because their kid outsmarted them at age 7. Maybe both. Grimdude fucked around with this message at 21:42 on Oct 30, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2018 21:40
|
|
|
Zanzibar Ham posted:Wait, I thought Jesus tried to make it seem like he's planning a revolt? Or is that 'go buy 2 swords but no more' thing not really in there? One of the biggest snags is that much of the Jesus stuff in the Bible is based on writings that came later. If memory serves very, very few primary sources exist and even those are a fragmented mess written down after Jesus would have died. Most of contemporary Christianity is based on translations of translations of translations or verbal stuff somebody didn't bother to write down until like 500 years later. Then that got translated through multiple languages while people tinkered with it to support what they believe rather than what Jesus actually taught. Though really the single worst thing that happened was when Biblical literalism came around. A lot of the stories in the Bible were never actually meant to be actual historical records.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2018 21:43
|
|
|
Gilgamesh v. Inkadu. (EPIC!) When you learn so many "biblical" stories are stolen oral history you start to ... doubt the historical veracity of the bible. My parents do not, can not, and never will understand this. Yeah, they're white and midwestern and baby boomers... why do you ask?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2018 22:57
|
|
|
And you haven't even touched on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2018 23:11
|
|
|
Also also also, isn't the most popular version of the Bible the one that was heavily abridged to suit the tastes of King James or whatever?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2018 23:48
|
|
|
the_steve posted:Also also also, isn't the most popular version of the Bible the one that was heavily abridged to suit the tastes of King James or whatever? Its semi complicated but, no. It's a few subtle thing. The 'christian bible' is abridged from catholic but by some books where not much happens? Its weird.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2018 23:51
|
|
|
The Bible is what books a Roman ecumenical council voted to be in the Bible and what books to leave out hundreds of years after the events of the gospels took place. Weirdly there's a lot of stuff in there about how nothing that happened was the Roman governor's fault, and actually obeying earthly kings and emperors like the Romans is what God wants you to do.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2018 23:53
|
|
|
the_steve posted:Also also also, isn't the most popular version of the Bible the one that was heavily abridged to suit the tastes of King James or whatever? I don't think it was abridged but if memory serves he did insist on certain changes being made in the translation. In particular he wanted it to justify the Church of England and how it was structured. Generally as far as Christianity goes the main disagreement seems to be over the Apocrypha; the New and Old Testaments are pretty much always the same things (the Old Testament is basically just the Tanakh) no matter what denomination you're talking about while the other stuff that gets stapled on can vary. Contemporary Christianity in America is primarily based on the KJV and a bunch of random teachings various scholars came up with from the 16th century on. Calvinism in particular is very influential. ToxicSlurpee fucked around with this message at 00:32 on Oct 31, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 00:29
|
|
|
Of course, there are other politically-motivated changes in translation.quote:The New American Standard Bible is a popular English translation, a revision of the American Standard Version of 1901. It was completed in 1971 and then revised and updated in 1995. I want to highlight one major change in one passage of the NASB — a case in which the 1995 update alters — and is intended to reverse — the text of the 1971 NASB.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 00:38
|
|
|
So strike her hard enough that she miscarries and you're as free as Job. Woo!  Postscript: Jesus loving christ, and people wonder why we'd rather worship the morning star. PhantomOfTheCopier fucked around with this message at 20:52 on Oct 31, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 20:45
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Contemporary Christianity in America is primarily based on the KJV and a bunch of random teachings various scholars came up with from the 16th century on. Calvinism in particular is very influential. I'm not 100% sure on this. Sure KJV has a lot of backing in the more fundamentalist churches, but I grew up and was a preacher's kid in NACCC churches (ideological descendants of the Pilgrims. Sorry about the puritans, guys) and we never used the KJV. Later on I was involved in the Church of Christ (Desciples of Christ) and there it was based mainly on NRSV but we frequently used other translations of the text as well. Christian libertarians are indeed trash, though. Universalism is the fuckin' way to go.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 20:55
|
|
|
Literally every denomination in these parts uses the kjv, far as I've seen. I think a few were saying it was ok to read plain English versions or whatever so long as you were reading a bible that was at least close. The harcore evangelicals ONLY recognize the kjv as legitimate. Every other version, even stuff in the original Hebrew that was like found in the dead sea or something, is considered wrong. If you don't have a 100% correct set of beliefs based on the kjv, which they believe is the only truly dictated directly by God version, then you go to hell. ...there are reasons I'm not Christian anymore, ok?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 21:17
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Literally every denomination in these parts uses the kjv, far as I've seen. I think a few were saying it was ok to read plain English versions or whatever so long as you were reading a bible that was at least close. I get it, and I certainly didn't want to pick a fight.  But yeah: those guys sound like utter assholes and I don't blame you for leaving them behind.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 21:32
|
|
|
It's not really that crazy, if you already believe silly things like "God showed up later and told some iron age itinerants what to write decades after the fact" it's not exactly a stretch to say "oh actually God didn't show up until 1600 and told some medieval scholars what to write because when he left it up to the Greeks they done hosed it up"
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 21:36
|
|
|
Nth Doctor posted:I get it, and I certainly didn't want to pick a fight. We're cool. We aren't fighting I just get bitchy about it because yeah those people were terrible. I didn't have the best childhood and part of the reason is evangelicals. I post about them when it comes up because a lot of people dont know just what evangelicals actually believe.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2018 23:28
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:a lot of people dont know just what evangelicals actually believe.  I had the joy of a few nearly-cults myself, and their belief that the KJV was wrong and the New Revised Standard Version was the one true word was... impressive. When I became a man I gave up childish things. "Thank God for atheism".
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2018 00:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 11:24 |
|
|
Judaism is the superior abrahamic faith because we make a point of reading the original text
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2018 01:35
|
|
