|
Renouncing their reactionary views in struggle sessions has prevented and hopefully will prevent unnecessary deaths. Advances in agriculture will also help prevent some of the more regrettable episodes.
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2017 01:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 12:08 |
|
|
Bolocko posted:This is more complicated, and the Christianity thread was just talking about this very thing the other day. Go check it out. In the meantime, one quick reason for declining membership is that liberalizing churches, in the name of disrupting some old order, tend to also adopt very bad aesthetics in addition to watering down the Christian message. And by watering down I mean stuff like "I'm OK, you're OK, we're all OK; I mean we're sinners, sure, but we're OK. We love everyone! Here's a sports analogy!" all relayed in a room that looks like a cafeteria with pews. Having read through it, it seems like people are having a hard time reconciling their political views with their Church. It's a classic issue with the existentialist underpinnings of our postmodern society. "Experience precedes essence" so you end up with a bunch of leftists trying to read or create leftism in a reactionary system and failing to do so or succeeding only insofar as they create a personal vanity project. They'd be better off putting down their bibles, staying away from their congregations and doing pretty much anything else.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2017 01:58
|
|
|
Bolocko posted:Please note also that while religious liberal/conservative and American political liberal/conservative categories often overlap, they are very different things. Though as you seem to have agreed, religious institutions are overwhelmingly conservative and what liberal institutions exist are either held together by outside forces (such as racism) or are failing spectacularly. Believe what you want in private. Nobody cares.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2017 02:09
|
|
|
Bolocko posted:I agreed to no such thing. So you think that despite liberal churches failing hard, somehow the church as an institution isn't conservative? I'm not sure how to square that circle.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2017 02:13
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I would say Norman Borlaug was a better man than Lenin. You are really grasping at straws here, aren't you?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2017 02:25
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:
Wow. One whole year before the Supreme Court pulled the country kicking and screaming into modernity. Such progress.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2017 04:38
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:So go shoot up a seminary about it instead of fantasizing about how sneering will get you a world where all the Jews are dead. The God and Flag people are the ones trying to kill all the Jews. Not the secularists. Hell, not even the Maoists.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2017 04:45
|
|
|
Every Jew I've ever known with the notable exception of two Conservatives would strongly disagree with your assertion that Jewishness is necessarily religious, but whatev's.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2017 05:02
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:I'm not saying that you repulsive little toad. What you are saying is that Jewishness is purely ethnic. LOL.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2017 05:09
|
|
|
Nude Bog Lurker posted:how many Jews do you think your republican day of the rope would kill I'm proud to report that the Jewish people overwhelmingly pull the lever for Team D.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2017 06:05
|
|
|
Nude Bog Lurker posted:you'd still be exterminating thirty percent of them which is pretty hosed up While the Jewish people do vote in high percentages, not 100% of them voted in 2016. But that minor detail aside, would it be more or less hosed up than exterminating 81% of the voting white Evangelicals? Why?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2017 06:32
|
|
|
Nude Bog Lurker posted:another possibility is that the morals man should exterminate 0% of any demographic It's certainly a possibility. Not a good one. But a possibility.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2017 07:38
|
|
|
Reactionaries are evil people. You beat them now the same way they've been beaten throughout history. Not through words or coddling but through direct action. Right now, in America, Reactionaries are killing people every day. With the Trump administration, they're going to be killing a lot more. Hell, we've already transitioned from the government having a soft, weakly enforced monopoly on killing minorities for sport to a more open system where you average Reactionary feels emboldened to kill someone for being the wrong color or speaking the wrong language. The war has been going on for a long, long time. I'm just saying it's OK to fight back. Most people intuitively agree with the notion of self-defense but when it's actually applied they balk because they've bought into the system perpetuating asymmetrical violence. Self defense is a fine and worthy thing.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2017 08:25
|
|
|
Nude Bog Lurker posted:Poor people, women and minorities of all colors and creeds should lie down in the street and die, peacefully. FTFY
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2017 00:54
|
|
|
zh1 posted:Don't you get it, you can only apply the principle of self-defense when the holy ghost deems it appropriate, which is curiously only when it doesn't threaten capital. Please, the Christians prefer the term "non-aggression principle." *tips fedora*
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2017 01:12
|
|
|
Bolocko posted:Suppose some woman has traded in three hours of, for example, playing video games each week, and instead uses that time to attend religious service and pray regularly: even if you think these acts are pointless I hope you'd at least agree this is just a lateral move. This is a particularly challenging example for me, since my my normal rebuttal would be, "Does [hobby] seem to teach or at least correlate with deeply reactionary views?" But, welp, thanks to Gamergate here we are.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2017 01:32
|
|
|
For me, they are similar. The individual never matters. It's too small for any real action. Groups, on the other hand, have real power. Christians, as a group, are clearly evil, as measured by their voting patterns. The more involved they are with that group, the more evil they become, as measured by correlating church attendance with voting patterns. Gamers follow a similar pattern. If you want to play games on your own time, who cares? It's not a good thing, so it's enough to raise some flags, sure. But once you start identifying as a "Gamer" the baggage that comes with that is seriously bad and it gets worse the more one identifies with being a "Gamer" until you reach "Gamergate" level where being a "Gamer" constitutes the majority of your identity and that identity is poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2017 05:01
|
|
|
Sinnlos posted:hosed up to claim anyone who ever votes differently than you is evil. 1) Why? 2) There are plenty of people who vote differently from me that aren't evil. But once you've crossed the Rubicon into "voting Republican or further right" I don't have a way of contextualizing that beyond pure evil. Ignorance only goes so far. Republicans and what they stand for are evil.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2017 05:59
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Then you lack information. Enlighten me. How are the Republicans not evil?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2017 06:08
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:You commented on republican voters, in consequentialist terms every individual voter owns a rather limited amount of responsibility, likely capable of being offset by simply being otherwise generally alright, far from pure evil. And in motive-based terms I think you simply fail to appreciate that it is very possible for other people to have a completely different context for decision making than you do, allowing them to make decisions they believe to be right, good, and which remain entirely wrong. I'm not a consequentialist, so your whole premise falls apart pretty quickly. "Evil" doesn't really make sense from a consequentialist perspective anyway. I do agree that people have a different context for decision making. In the case of Christians, I think their decision making process has been deformed by improper moral cultivation which has made them evil. They may think they are "good" but so what? Dylan Roof wrote about how hard it was to shoot up that black church because the people were so welcoming and nice but he had to do it because it was the good and right thing to do. Dylan Roof thinks he's a good person who did a good thing. Does your moral relativism allow for Dylan Roof being a good person (or at least "not an evil person") because his framework for decision making was so terribly wrong?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2017 06:32
|
|
|
Why don't you kill everyone you see? Is some higher power holding you back?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2017 06:40
|
|
|
Easy, culture does change. So what? Would culture changing make it OK to gently caress a baby until your dick breaks the child in half? You are probably tempted to write something like "yeah, that'd be OK if I was raised in that culture" just to be contrarian but despite infanticide and pederasty being a thing throughout human history you won't find that practice. Also, as you start to type that "Yeah, that'd be OK" there is probably a really bad feeling in your gut. Listen to your innate moral grammar. We've all got it. It's certainly not rational and not ideal. It's especially bad when it comes to in-group/out-group distinctions. But construct Republican policies as Trolley problems and they fail spectacularly every time. There are five people tied to train tracks. There is a train coming on a parallel track. You can pull the lever to make the train run the five people over. This will make the people on the train be five minutes late to their appointments. Most of them are not serious but some are very important. However, you will be awarded a substantial insurance sum for killing those people and making those people late. Do you pull the lever? What if it wasn't you being awarded that money. What if it was someone else who you didn't know but they are fantastically wealthy? What does your innate sense of the good tell you to do?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2017 06:55
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:If you're arguing that I should suspend ethical reasoning and just go with whatever my instinctive reaction says then I proclaim the highest morals to be spending as much time as possible asleep and scratching your balls a lot in public. Keep going with that strawman. Edit: Seriously, that's not a thing that people do. I'm not a big fan of Mincome but whenever we've tried it, people don't loaf about. They actively engage and do things. Your dim view of human nature stems from a misinformed moral education. Shbobdb fucked around with this message at 07:44 on Mar 14, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2017 07:35
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:Uh, how would a brutal, war crime-heavy occupation "help?" The South already hated the North, why would murdering all of them fix this problem? Republicans do kill people for money, but I do agree it is "obviously" wrong. That's your answer. It's been touched on in other areas in this thread. The mass line takes time to build but during the Roman times there were abolitionists. In early America there were abolitionists. They were considered extreme. Now their views are accepted as morally correct. To argue the moral relativism you are espousing is to ignore their achievements and normalize brutality.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2017 07:46
|
|
|
Bolocko posted:Is it possible for one's emotions and intuition to be poisoned — as by, for example, addiction, depression, disease, or social pressure —so that this moral framework cannot be validly constructed? Absolutely. It's more than that. We have to cultivate our innate sense of the good in order to be human. It's a process and it's not always an easy one. Lack of cultivation or a perverted development can and do result in deeply dysfunctional morals. Religion in general seems very bad at providing this cultivation since absence of religion seems to result in more fully realized humans. That's a broad category and I'm sure there are some exceptions. But you don't find meaningful exceptions when dealing with Christianity in the United States, as a specific. It's a broken institution resulting in broken, terrifying people who actively seek to do evil.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2017 02:49
|
|
|
Calibanibal posted:noted broken, terrifying person MLK Jr I've clearly made exceptions for minority Churches. It wasn't MLK's faith that drove the Civil Rights movement. American Black Liberation has had Christians, Muslims, and atheists all fight for it while finding ground. It's almost like religion doesn't actually matter in this case! Because it doesn't. Edit: Like, do you not get what I'm saying? As a moral litmus test all I'm asking is "Does it produce reactionaries?" Trying to "got'cha" me with Black Churches clearly misses the point. Shbobdb fucked around with this message at 03:57 on Mar 15, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2017 03:54
|
|
|
And Malcolm X and Farrakhan were Muslims. Bobby Seale and Huey Newton were atheists. Yet they all actively viewed each other as being part of the same movement. It's almost like religion doesn't matter.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2017 04:21
|
|
|
zh1 posted:Holy poo poo guys! Thanks for that. It's like internet warlord going, "THIS sick BURN will CLEANSE the opposition!11111" A big flaming stink, it's not like you are illuminating some new truth. You are trying to re-purpose old truths to serve old masters.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2017 04:49
|
|
|
zh1 posted:Uh He Was The CHRIST you Guys, He was a Undeniable Religiousulilty MAN who Did a Fing...Now You Gonna Tell Me Other poo poo?? For OTHER REASON? What the fucka you fucka you gonna fucka you gonna fucka a hrer er ermmmennn....*Mashes d&d post button like a BAUS* This is a good post and would have been a great post once upon a time. But the modern shitposter has grown and developed. Tier 1, ZH1, is make sure you have someone buy an avatar and redtext for you. That is what makes you real. But, take my advice, D&D posters are p jaded. You need to spread your wings and fly to get the 'tard 'tar. I know you can do it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2017 04:58
|
|
|
now you are ready for lf thirdworldism *slowclap* *insert obligatory 13 (600+) year old anime girl being empowered here8 (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2017 05:17
|
|
|
You know what, zh1, I like you!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2017 05:20
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:However, I think the strongest, most consistent response a religious person can bring to this is to simply point to God's incomprehensibility. It doesn't seem just to you. Well, your mind is not the arbiter of justice. God's mind, however, is. So what does this incomprehensibility have to offer? The original argument was that religion 1) Provided a moral framework 2) provided community and 3) Is hedonic. Now it's "religion is weird and incomprehensible and at odds with life as lived." What does religion have to offer?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2017 17:21
|
|
|
Michael Jackson posted:but was it sacred? "LF: The Secular as Sacred" by SA poster Humphrey Fingerbanger is a very short, almost pamphlet sized text. Despite that, it's had a profound impact on how we contextualize LF and almost all discussions about LF, excepting those purely focused on historical aspects of the school, will reference it in some way. "With superb faithfulness to the site, Fingerbanger discerns the deepest meaning of the thought of LF and, paradoxically, its application to our own time. This is another beautiful book from one of our most perceptive thinkers." -- Robot In Shallah
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2017 17:26
|
|
|
I was using "us" as in the "the left". I don't see religion as having any political utility outside of using minority churches to organize voters. The fact that churches also seem to indoctrinate people against the left and result in more reactionary voters is also a strike against it. That's been my point: the left isn't hostile to religion, religion is hostile to the left. Who care about what an individual believes? That's not at all what I'm talking about nor is it my concern.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2017 18:01
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Actually you weren't?.. What are you referring to? Of course I wasn't. I've stated here and other places that the individual doesn't matter. Do what you want on your own time. The mass line is where the action is. Religion pulls that line back.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2017 23:15
|
|
|
Rationalism and empiricism are at odds with each other. From a rationalist perspective, you do absolutely have to take some things a priori. So what?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2017 23:16
|
|
|
magnavox space odyssey posted:So nothing, there's just flaws in the scientific method, is all. It's not perfect and it cannot determine all things, just the things it was made for. Also regarding your religion holding the people back: weren't the most gigantic upheavals in history based in societies that were far more religious than most people are today? It's not like union workers in the US were all atheists. I see a lot of questions here as well as some irrelevant assertions. What point are you trying to make?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2017 01:36
|
|
|
RasperFat posted:It's a well worn argument that basically boils down to "God of the Gaps". Because our imperfect tool of science cannot give full and perfect understanding to imperfect humans, there's always room for God. It's OK, part of the pathology of Christianity is that it has to reframe everything within the context of itself. You see it in the thread all the time. I'll bring up a structural issue, and they'll try to personalize it. When that doesn't work, they'll try to reframe it as an ad hom. If I were trying to argue for a personal solution to a personal problem, that ad hom would make a lot of sense. But I'm not, it's not so it doesn't.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2017 03:15
|
|
|
How can you believe anything if you can't explain The Crystal Heads? I'm not saying or even suggesting that the Crystal Heads are real. But both science and contemporary religion can't explain the Crystal Heads. In this video, experience with the sublime is clearly discussed. If you haven't had an experience with the divine, I pity you.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2017 04:01
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 12:08 |
|
|
You can try the Crystal Head for only <local price>. Given that pure nordic water has been filtered through the finest white diamonds, don't you feel like that is a steal?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2017 04:21
|
|