alex jones thread is broken, like the power of the globalist agenda

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > alex jones thread is broken, like the power of the globalist agenda

Azathoth: Apr 3, 2001

Atrocious Joe posted:

Every time I show someone who doesn't know Alex Jones a clip or vine of him, they state how unsettling he is.

It's pretty neat

The clips of him getting super-angry about something reminds me uncomfortably of people I've met who have a severe mental illness but who refuse treatment, and their families can't do anything because they aren't a danger to themselves or others, but who, if you heard on the news that they snapped and did something horrible, you'd be saddened but not surprised.

I don't think he's actually crazy, but he really knows how to get that reaction in the lizard part of the brain that says "back away from this person slowly, and don't make any sudden movements".

# ¿ Sep 5, 2016 09:55

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 00:49

Azathoth: Apr 3, 2001

Solvent posted:

So Alex Jones IS crazy, and just sane enough to inspire paranoid delusions in people who are merely anxious, while giving people who ARE sane a reason to stay the gently caress away. Is that what you're saying here?

If so, this guy REALLY IS dangerous in his role as a demagogue.

Yeah, I'll agree with that. He's the alt-right/paranoid-right version of Ann Coulter, in that he believes a good bit of what he says, but has a strong financial incentive to let the crazy out on a regular basis. It's why those clips are so unnerving to people who don't know him, they look and feel just like real, authentic crazy and actually are on occasion, and he's a good enough showman that it's not really possible to tell which are which. If he was actually completely off the deep end, I'd expect to see his paranoia be far more self-destructive, but he seems to have enough awareness to keep it in check when the cameras aren't rolling.

# ¿ Sep 5, 2016 20:55

Azathoth: Apr 3, 2001

McDowell posted:

'They tell me you're a mad man.'
"Only desultoraly."
'How are you feeling now?'
"I'm as mad as a hatter."
'Who isn't?'

Who defines what beliefs are acceptable? What is your opinion of Raelians? How are they playacting while Anglicans, Scientologists etc are 'legitimate'? Tax exemptions? I'm not looking for that.

You either need to take more or less of what you're on. I can't decide which.

# ¿ Sep 7, 2016 00:05

Azathoth: Apr 3, 2001

Pener Kropoopkin posted:

From what little we think we know about the actually existing Gnostics, they were a deeply communal people who ritualized the commons in all things. So unless there's an active community of Gnostics that you're engaging with, you're not anymore "devout" than a Catholic who never attends mass. All you're doing is toying with metaphysical concepts, because there's no meaningful way to even practice your professed religion. It is pure self indulgence.

I don't think it's accurate to say that we don't know anything about Gnostics, but the term "Gnostic" is about as defining as "Christian" or "Pagan". There's common through-lines, obviously, but individual sects/groups/denominations could have wildly varying ideologies.

You are right to say that there's little information on what can collectively be termed Christian Gnostics, but it's hard to say if those groups even were gnostic at all, as a lot of early Christian writers had very liberal interpretations of what Gnosticism actually entailed. We do, however, have a lot of information on many later Gnostic groups, such as the Manichaeans.

The challenge, as with any religion reconstructed from only archaelogy and what texts we have that remain extant, is that we can never be sure if our understanding of the way that religion interacted with their daily lives is accurate.

I know many Christians who don't believe that one can truly be Christian unless said person is actively engaged in a community of faith. However, that same person may fully accept as Christian, a monk who has retreated to a remote location to study scripture away from the influence of the modern world.

If Christianity had been suppressed fully in the 5th century, before the Council of Chalcedon gave official approval from the Church, what would archaeologists and anthropologists have made of someone like St. Anthony, if they were even aware of him and the movement he started at all?

# ¿ Sep 7, 2016 19:34

Azathoth: Apr 3, 2001

Sir Tonk posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFsKSTRDGkA

looks like the cloning project is going well

Am I the only one who thinks that the guy on the right is wearing a fake beard? Looks like a real-life Wooly Willy.

# ¿ Sep 11, 2016 03:46

Azathoth: Apr 3, 2001

420 Gank Mid posted:

lmao if your lovely religion doesnt let you get cool robot parts

I hate it when one person claims to represent "Christianity" in some controversial debate, since the idea that there's one single thread of indisputable morality that covers all issues and to which all Christians adhere is laughable. At the very least, I wish that they would state which particular denomination or theological grouping they adhere to, since that has profound implications to all manner of views and claiming to speak for some imagined consensus of Christians is claiming authority that the speaker doesn't have.

As a deep and committed Christian, I plan to hang around on Earth as long as possible, and if I can replace all of my failing fleshy parts with fancy new robot parts, I'm gonna be all over that. Doing so isn't some kind of affront to God any more than getting knee replacements or an artificial heart is.

To argue that all Christians view transhumanism as some kind of Tower of Babel technological affront to God is just plain wrong, and it's a dangerous path to go anyways or else you're gonna end up like those Christian Science folks who try to pray away the cancer instead of letting a doctor open them up and cut it out, then treat them with radiation and/or chemo.

That isn't to say that there aren't Christians who would agree, I'm sure there are, and I'm sure there's actually a lot of them, but making blanket statements like that is about as accurate as me saying that all transhumanists are technofetishists who frequently disappear up their own assholes.

# ¿ Sep 12, 2016 16:29

Azathoth: Apr 3, 2001

McDowell posted:

If that is what you want the Kingdom of God is happy to provide it, but it has nothing to do with what Christ's mission, which was about getting off this planet. Humans should see this existence for what it is and accept their mortality - instead of some crazy insistence on prodigious breeding and a slow, painful death.

Christ's mission is not about getting off this planet, it's about doing good while we're here and what comes after, and I say that as a sola fide Christian. If it was about getting off this planet, there'd be a lot more mass suicides, which haven't been in-vogue in Christian circles since the various Roman persecutions, individual and small-group martyrdom aside.

As for your second point about humans accepting their mortality, that's the part where I break from transhumanists in general. I understand that I will die someday, but to not take advantage of opportunities to extend life is to cheapen the very gift of life. However, if I can live an extra 5, 10, 50, or 500 years, that is an opportunity to do additional good on Earth, before going on to my eternal reward. If that gift of extra life ended up being open-ended, in that I would stop aging entirely, that is an indefinite opportunity to do good.

Now, there are many good reasons to reject a gift, even one as precious as life itself, but simply because it isn't somehow "natural" is to reject the very idea that God continually shapes the world. If such a world existed, it would be because God had chosen to actuate a world in which there is indefinite life.

The only possible counterargument that I can see would be if the extension of such life was produced in an inherently unethical way, such as "you can live forever, but to do so, we must harvest a specific chemical which cannot be synthesized from the living brain of another human" to use a stereotypical and reductionist example.

# ¿ Sep 12, 2016 18:28

Azathoth: Apr 3, 2001

zeal posted:

And how'd you reach that conclusion, you read Koine Greek or Aramaic?

Nope, I'm happy to outsource that to professionals, though I have read multiple translations of the Bible, examined the translators qualifications, at least as much as any layman can, and noted their denominational and theological biases. For the translations I've read, I have noted which primary documents they used in their to produce their translations to do my best to make sure they aren't cherry-picking documents or using sources that have been acknowledged to be less accurate than another available source.

That's why I prefer the NRSV translation now, though when I want to study a section deeper, I read it in a couple other translations, and if possible read annotations from the translators for those versions.

I also try to be mindful of the fact that the translators are working from documents that are many hundreds of years from the original writing, and that different versions contain irreconcilable differences that cannot be put down to simple scribal error. I also try to keep in mind the limits of objective translation and understand that translators must necessarily make interpretive judgment in some cases.

I don't have a functional knowledge of Koine Greek, Aramaic, or Hebrew, but I do my best to educate myself on potential translations for words with strong theological implications, such as any reference to Hell. I claim zero academic knowledge, but if it's reasonable for me to educate myself on it, I do my best.

# ¿ Sep 12, 2016 19:18

Azathoth: Apr 3, 2001

McDowell posted:

I believe Ti & Do are exactly who they said they were, if you look at their message and their time on this planet you might reach the same conclusion. Azathoth have you checked out the Nag Hammadi scriptures?

I haven't gotten a chance to read many of the included books, though I have read The Gospel of Thomas, which I found interesting more for its form than for its content. I read it when I was looking at the case for the Q gospel, and while I still don't think that Q ever existed, it was interesting to see how a document with such a form existed in the ancient world and how it compared with the reconstructed Q. I've also gone through parts of the other Gospels included there, but mostly as an adjunct to something else I was reading, and not to appreciate them as complete texts.

I know enough about Gnosticism to not simply read them at face value. Frankly, I don't understant Gnosticism well enough to critically read primary sources, and the odds that much of what was being conveyed would go over my head is just too high to make it worthwhile for me to go through them.

Most of the knowledge I have of the remaining books come from what Bart Ehrman via his wonderful book Lost Christianities, and while I respect him as a scholar and haven't found myself disagreeing with him much, I don't feel that I have a full picture of them.

# ¿ Sep 12, 2016 20:00

Azathoth: Apr 3, 2001

zeal posted:

why do you bother placing cosmic importance in iron age apocalyptic fiction then, when you already know what you claim as a holy book is the product of a self-interested game of telephone played out over the course of centuries and multiple language systems? a book you've never actually even read, for that matter?

I would dispute your assertion that the production of the bible was self-interested, certainly up until Constantine, being a Christian could be decidedly against one's self-interest. By the time being a Christian would have truly gotten one ahead, the biblical canon had already taken on the shape we have today. That isn't to say that the translations were without error or that personal motivations didn't factor in, but that's the point of trying to reconstruct the original texts via as many separate sources as possible.

As for me having never read the original texts, you're completely right. I wish I had the requisite skills to pick up the languages to such a degree that I could understand them without the benefit of translators, but I do not. I've tried and failed miserably to learn modern languages from within the Germanic branch, and so I have not even attempted to learn Koine Greek, Aramaic, or Ancient Hebrew.

However, I've also never read Marcus Aurelius in the original Latin, or Laozi in the original Chinese, but instead read translations, and I don't feel that the presence of a translator is fatal to understanding the ideas that the authors were trying to communicate. To bring a more modern example, I've never read Gabriel Garcia Marquez in Spanish, but his works remain some of my favorites.

As for why I believe? It's a hard question, and not one to which I have a ready and easily digestible answer, though I have devoted no small amount of thought to it.

In the end, there's a variety of reasons. First, it's what I was raised to believe, and being a Christian is part of my identity. I know that that is a selfish, but I do want to state that that is part of it.

Second, the belief enriches my inner life. I don't mean that God gives me free stuff because I believe, I stay far away from the Prosperity Gospel, I mean that the belief enriches me on a philosophical and spiritual level, and helps to make me a more complete person.

Third, it helps me live a better, more just, and happier life. Could I be just as good of a person if I were an atheist? Sure, most of my friends are atheists and they're just as happy, charitable, kind, and loving as I am. However, my faith provides me with both a personal, internal conduit to doing good, and also an external structure in which to do good things.

Finally, the God that I read about in the Bible is one who is worthy of worship. I understand that many people do not see it the way that I do, but that doesn't change how I see it.

FYI, since this is derailing the thread, I don't want to get into an argument defending or expounding upon my faith further. However, if someone wants to continue this, I suggest that we take it to private messages.

I was trying to give an alternative perspective on that video, pointing out the bullshit in it from a different side, and did not intend to take the thread this way. I will likely continue to offer my perspective, whether explicitly Christian or not, but I will do my best to refrain from going this off topic in the future.

Azathoth has issued a correction as of 20:46 on Sep 12, 2016

# ¿ Sep 12, 2016 20:43

Azathoth: Apr 3, 2001

McDowell posted:

Those are just little monikers for those individuals, like Alpha and Omega. Everyone needs a name by which they are called. If you are just going to make fun however I will be moving along. There's an interesting element of the story where Do and the class started posting online and they received lots of abuse - that was one of the signs to start wrapping up the mission.

I'm legit curious what you think about Do and Ti's suicide, along with all the other folks at the mansion. Were they doing the right thing? Do you think there was something hiding in the wake of the Hale-Bopp comet?

I'm not asking out of malice or poking fun, I've just never had the chance to engage with someone who accepts those particular religious/philosophical tenets.

# ¿ Sep 14, 2016 15:25

Azathoth: Apr 3, 2001

ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:

McDowell is either one of the stupidest gimmick posters ever or someone who needs to be Baker Acted.

If he's a gimmick, he understands enough about new age UFO religions to convincingly fake it. I'm starting to come around to the idea that he's not a gimmick, and that he's just someone who's done way, way more hallucinogens than he should and found "God" as a result. I don't put the scare quotes around "God" to suggest that his beliefs are insincere, but to emphasize that he didn't find the Judeo-Christian God, as that phrase might otherwise imply.

If he is a gimmick, then kudos to the man behind the mask. It's quite convincing. However, if he is a gimmick, I would question what his goal is, as he seems to have spent more time understanding his act than anyone else expends dealing with it. I think it'd probably fall more into performance art at that point.

# ¿ Sep 15, 2016 18:28

Azathoth: Apr 3, 2001

SMILLENNIALSMILLEN posted:

If anything ive become more distrustful of zog since switching to sugar free soda

Don't worry, a team of Happiness Technicians will be dispatched to your location shortly. We'll have you fixed up in no time!

# ¿ Sep 19, 2016 17:16

Azathoth: Apr 3, 2001

MullardEL34 posted:

Alex Jones and Michael Savage are sharing a shortwave broadcast right now. We have reached the tinfoil event horizon.

As the crazy collapses in on itself, a wormhole opens to another world, another time and another place. Then, in a simultaneous moment of annihilation and creation, Art Bell is reborn once again, to live out yet another life spreading the truth across the multiverse. So it happened before, and so it shall happen again, until all possible worlds are brought forth from darkness into the light.

Edit:

Dammit McDowell, you beat me to the punch!

# ¿ Sep 20, 2016 04:42

Azathoth: Apr 3, 2001

McDowell posted:

Hey why isn't Infowars reporting on these New York bombs as a false flag? They're just repeating the official story. It must be true!

Infowars lack of a false flag story is itself a false flag operation. We're through the looking glass here people...

# ¿ Sep 20, 2016 19:16

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 00:49

Azathoth: Apr 3, 2001

logikv9 posted:

release a line of mind erasure chili that, depending on the flavor, will help you forget select moments

going through a hard breakup? there's a chili for that. you won't even remember what you did for the last 2 years

Da Joose brand chili! Congress is currently racing back to Washington to outlaw our secret recipe, but our contact in Russia assures us that he's got dozens of new benzos that the FDA has never even heard of.

# ¿ Apr 30, 2017 02:04

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > alex jones thread is broken, like the power of the globalist agenda