Most important thing about the left: They don't believe a goddamned thing.
The Liberal party of Canada elected a hedge fund manager to be their prime minister, then Canada elected the Liberal Party of Canada, headed by a hedge fund manager, to be prime minister.
It doesn't make any sense at this point to keep bothering to point out hypocrisy, because their moral framework doesn't actually hold hypocrisy as wrong because truth doesn't exist except as a path to power and an expression of power.
The Liberal party of Canada elected a hedge fund manager to be their prime minister, then Canada elected the Liberal Party of Canada, headed by a hedge fund manager, to be prime minister.
It doesn't make any sense at this point to keep bothering to point out hypocrisy, because their moral framework doesn't actually hold hypocrisy as wrong because truth doesn't exist except as a path to power and an expression of power.
"Expecting me not to give my kid drugs and strangle them to death is white supremacy"
ok.
ok.
Two geese.
One digs in the dirt all day to get worms for hatchlings.
One plays quack all day. Not because it can't, but because digging is for the birds.
"Equity" says it's unfair the dirt digging goose has so many worms and the quack goose has none, take from dirt digging goose and give to quack goose.
Equitable, but not fair.
But third goose was born without wings, can't fly, struggles to get to dirt to find worms. Works harder than digging goose, but can't get enough worms to survive.
Wingless goose didn't ask to be born without wings.
Not equitable, but also not fair.
The world is complicated. Quack tournament goose exists, so does wingless goose.
Worse, if you try to limit help to wingless goose, some Quack tournament gooses might claim they lost a feather.
And if we help wingless goose, should they have to keep working as hard as digging goose to deserve help? Is that fair? Maybe, but isn't being a wingless goose already really hard?
Anyone who says it's an easy problem to answer is being a silly goose.
One digs in the dirt all day to get worms for hatchlings.
One plays quack all day. Not because it can't, but because digging is for the birds.
"Equity" says it's unfair the dirt digging goose has so many worms and the quack goose has none, take from dirt digging goose and give to quack goose.
Equitable, but not fair.
But third goose was born without wings, can't fly, struggles to get to dirt to find worms. Works harder than digging goose, but can't get enough worms to survive.
Wingless goose didn't ask to be born without wings.
Not equitable, but also not fair.
The world is complicated. Quack tournament goose exists, so does wingless goose.
Worse, if you try to limit help to wingless goose, some Quack tournament gooses might claim they lost a feather.
And if we help wingless goose, should they have to keep working as hard as digging goose to deserve help? Is that fair? Maybe, but isn't being a wingless goose already really hard?
Anyone who says it's an easy problem to answer is being a silly goose.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tO1L3SKhfU
It's important for everyone to remember it doesn't just happen elsewhere, it happens in first world nations, it happens in places that sniff their farts about how wonderful and advanced they are, I guarantee it happens in America too.
The laws of physics really don't care where you live if you try to violate them. :(
It's important for everyone to remember it doesn't just happen elsewhere, it happens in first world nations, it happens in places that sniff their farts about how wonderful and advanced they are, I guarantee it happens in America too.
The laws of physics really don't care where you live if you try to violate them. :(
The laws of physics supercede the laws of man. You are not the fictional person on TV. If you go up against a car, every single car on the market today will win.
Russia and China are both not looking so good right now. I wonder if both regions enter a warring States period if the governments collapse in the next 20 years?
You forget to lock down your YouTube creator page and your Twitter during ONE (1) Christmas day ayuaska trip, the world loses their goddamn minds!
Odin frowns on our broken world!
Odin frowns on our broken world!
I thought it was funny that the same day he implemented that, he and Musk started shaking a hankerchief around over on X and TS to distract from it.
I failed my drug test -- I couldn't figure out what half the drugs they gave me were! I should have studied harder and taken more drugs beforehand, but I didn't want it to come to work high.
I got mixed signals on this one.
(I think it's a different guy than you're talking about)
(I think it's a different guy than you're talking about)
Meanwhile the swatzika enjoyers all like "no, that pussy isn't with us", and the Israel lobby all like "no, that gigachad isn't with them"
One thing that's kind of humorous is a lot of Americans are going "I don't know why you'd want to leave Mexico anyway, low prices on groceries, you can hire people and relatively low cost, wait for your regulations... In fact you know what I'm moving to Mexico!" And then they moved to Mexico.
If I were going to move to the US, my guiding light would be "obey the law". That way I wouldn't get deported for disobeying the law.
Doesn't actually seem like a big ask.
Doesn't actually seem like a big ask.
ngl, people who hold up Athenian democracy as anything but a good example of the dangers of democracy don't know enough about Athenian democracy. There's a reason why Plato and Aristotle both wrote that it's shite. Not to mention their teacher was sentenced to death by that same democracy for the crime of being kind of annoying.
Plato did see the fall of Athenian democracy, though temporarily, within his lifetime, and by the end of his student Aristotle's lifetime, it was basically dead. Aristotle's student Alexander would become the king of the Macedonian Empire and the democracy in Athens would be replaced with an oligarchy.
Plato did see the fall of Athenian democracy, though temporarily, within his lifetime, and by the end of his student Aristotle's lifetime, it was basically dead. Aristotle's student Alexander would become the king of the Macedonian Empire and the democracy in Athens would be replaced with an oligarchy.
"Whataboutery" for you is the main course for me. The history is more interesting than the specific theological debate.
If my understanding of history is wrong, well that sucks I'll have to study harder.
If my understanding of history is wrong, well that sucks I'll have to study harder.
Besides, the best thing about having bridges is you can meet people from other services too.
I think a lot of what the author said can be true as well as what I said.
Post
I think you're smooshing together three ideas: ritualized warfare or sacrifice, spreading the influence of a particular religion through warfare, and spreading a particular religion to all the conquered peoples.
For ritualized warfare or sacrifice, you don't necessarily need the victims to believe what you believe, you just need them to die or be conquered. "I don't need you to believe, I just need you to die."
Back during bronze age Mesopotamia, every city has its own patron deity, and it it wasn't typical for religion to be spread through warfare per se.
Even much later during the Islamic conquest around the 7-8th century, the Islamic caliphate was grown through warfare, but in fact Islam was a religion of the ruling class and because Muslims were exempt from certain taxes, and were given additional protections by the religion and so it was contrary to the interests of the ruling class to have the ruled follow the same God.
So for this second thing, it's "I don't need you to believe, I just need to be your King who believes"
It really wasn't until the axial age monotheistic religions and particularly much later Christendom that you wanted everyone to necessarily join your particular religion, likely because it stopped being a way to feel in control of a world that's too random to fully understand and became a social code for people to agree on and live by to reduce the stress of having to deal with a bunch of people you don't know in big civilizations. In the East, multiple religions often coexist because they each were compatible with one another and provided something important, such as imperial China balancing Daoism, Confucianism, and Buddhism, so monotheism isn't necessarily mandatory for the axial age social technologies to work, it just happened that a particular strain ended up highly successful in the West. Essentially, "I need you to believe what I believe, but you can believe other stuff too."
Judaism really didn't want converts per se, but it did demand exclusivity for those who did believe. It was a regional religion for people of a certain bloodline. Some people did convert, but it was never an evangelical religion even being Abrahamic. Christianity's innovation was opening the faith to anyone who was willing to convert, combined with the enforced monotheism of Judaism (or to be more accurate, the precursor to Judaism from around 0 BC). The combination of the two did make it a lot more aggressive than the polytheistic faiths that preceded it.
So in this final form which Islam also inherits, it's "I need you to believe what I believe, and nothing else"
Post
I think you're smooshing together three ideas: ritualized warfare or sacrifice, spreading the influence of a particular religion through warfare, and spreading a particular religion to all the conquered peoples.
For ritualized warfare or sacrifice, you don't necessarily need the victims to believe what you believe, you just need them to die or be conquered. "I don't need you to believe, I just need you to die."
Back during bronze age Mesopotamia, every city has its own patron deity, and it it wasn't typical for religion to be spread through warfare per se.
Even much later during the Islamic conquest around the 7-8th century, the Islamic caliphate was grown through warfare, but in fact Islam was a religion of the ruling class and because Muslims were exempt from certain taxes, and were given additional protections by the religion and so it was contrary to the interests of the ruling class to have the ruled follow the same God.
So for this second thing, it's "I don't need you to believe, I just need to be your King who believes"
It really wasn't until the axial age monotheistic religions and particularly much later Christendom that you wanted everyone to necessarily join your particular religion, likely because it stopped being a way to feel in control of a world that's too random to fully understand and became a social code for people to agree on and live by to reduce the stress of having to deal with a bunch of people you don't know in big civilizations. In the East, multiple religions often coexist because they each were compatible with one another and provided something important, such as imperial China balancing Daoism, Confucianism, and Buddhism, so monotheism isn't necessarily mandatory for the axial age social technologies to work, it just happened that a particular strain ended up highly successful in the West. Essentially, "I need you to believe what I believe, but you can believe other stuff too."
Judaism really didn't want converts per se, but it did demand exclusivity for those who did believe. It was a regional religion for people of a certain bloodline. Some people did convert, but it was never an evangelical religion even being Abrahamic. Christianity's innovation was opening the faith to anyone who was willing to convert, combined with the enforced monotheism of Judaism (or to be more accurate, the precursor to Judaism from around 0 BC). The combination of the two did make it a lot more aggressive than the polytheistic faiths that preceded it.
So in this final form which Islam also inherits, it's "I need you to believe what I believe, and nothing else"
The last time they tried to convince us everything was super peaceful, shortly after that state asked for half a billion dollars to fix all of the not damage the not rioters didn't cause.