How are you so unimaginably ignorant?
I find the amount of deceit which reactionaries engage in physically revolting.
In what part of the north of the United States do large swaths of the religious population reject modern society?
So considering how irreligious the North is I don't think this really plays well into your narrative.
Religion in America: U.S. Religious Data, Demographics and Statistics and when you look deeper into the studies of the various states the and look at how often people seldom/never participate in prayer/study of scripture it is extremely difficult to say that these individuals are more than nominally christian. If I am going to comment further on this you are going to need to narrow down your rather broad statement and explain the scope of modern society so that I am capable of discriminating between those who accept it and those who reject it. For example is are acceptance of mixed and/or gay marriage considered part of modern society? if not what is? if so what else?
The Deep South and the Appalachia region are not necessarily anti-science; that in fact can be seen when they embrace modern technological aspects of military technology or other modern appliances. They are however, anti-government. And the northern states, particularly the Yankees, are very pro-science, on the belief that science is the new god of this world (a very wrong belief, I might add) that can cure all that is wrong in the world.
This is actually a willfully ignorant (stupid) statement. It is quite possible to accept the fruits (or some of the fruits) of science without accepting science. The problem as is pointed out by this article
Scientific Literacy: It's Not (Just) About The Facts is that we don't actually know what the scientific literacy is in the US (in any state), we only know what it is not. The surveys even the surveys in that article and the ones below do not test Scientific Literacy. What they test is does the belief of the individual taking the survey match scientific consensus. It's a parroting servery but does not explore the deeper and more important question of literacy, ie do people understand basic scientific principles? How science works? and the way conclusions are drawn? The surveys which exist test knowledge of facts not the principles used to obtain the facts.
For example do people understand what scientific consensus means?
Is it:
A) An opinion held by most scientists
B) An agreement of experimental conclusions?
C) Neither
In U.S., Belief in Creationist View of Humans at New Low Column 3 in the second chart is particularly telling especially when compared to the other columns.
Explore the geographic distribution and demographics of America's major religious groups.
www.pewforum.org
When you do a side by side of religiosity by sate those numbers are very intersting
Most and least religious U.S. states
As an interesting note
https://philanthropy.iupui.edu/doc/Insights/12-2015_1.pdf
Let's take an easy one. I was in a debate recently about a debate and if one of the debaters presented accurate information. They brought up that the biological understanding of sex has gotten more complex and that the number of intersex people are about the same as gingers (~2%). The actual number is 1.7%. When I brought this number up the person responded by linking me to a defunct study. But that wasn't the real problem The real problem was that the number in the study was based on the Medical definition of intersex and not the biological definition. So even charitably granting that the study wasn't defunct didn't matter because the debater was not referencing Medical Intersex but was explicitly referencing Biological intersex. And this is a real problem. Most people cannot read abstracts and understand what is intended to be conveyed by and what is not.
It is no secret that Yankeedom and its allies have used science, invented or actual, to push their political agendas over local government through the federal government by using it as a means to alter their lifestyle. Nor is it a new trick. The north has traditionally used the Feds to achieve this end for countless decades. It is mostly with good intentions that Yankeedom has done this and the Deep South is not remotely innocent. Their slave society pushed Yankeedom into the belief that they cannot be trusted. Nor is Appalachia wholly innocent either.
Again there is a distinction to be made between using science and understanding science. And yes Yankeedom (as much as I dislike to admit it) is mostly responsible for getting pseudo-science like intelligent design ejected from the public schools. And liberals have also done dumb libshit things to push political agendas intended to do nothing more than virtue signal and not to really solve the problem (I am looking at you California with your plastic straw ban). There is a problem that needs to be solved there but banning plastic straws while it may make Yankee libshits feel good doesn't actually solve the problem. And as much as it pains me to say it the Yankee's generally speaking are right. The south cannot be trusted.
To oppose individual religious groups, beliefs, and such is one thing. To assert that all the world is in peril because religion exists is the tell-tale sign of a narrow man who relishes only what he knows, not that which he can learn. You are intellectually sir, no more sophisticated than an inbred white hick who fires off his gun to warn off any wanderers. That is your tiny hilltop of pseudo-intellectualism and it is all but barren, but by God is it yours.
that is an amazing assertion. Care to back it up? Or are you incapable of having a nuanced conversation on my views and how I came to the conclusions I have. Further I did not say that the world is in peril because of religion, nor do I hold that view. My view is that the world is in peril because of some religions specifically but not limited to Yahwehist religions. Further the world is in peril not from all Yahwehists but from select Yahwehists (who I am zeroing in on here) given their known stochastic effect and their overall influence and negative measurable impact upon the world.
Which is funny, because whenever people like Sanders come along, the push is always to support them at the national level, not preach what they believe in. Socialism and communism must always be imposed from top down. Because if it isn't, then people who disagree with the policy will immediately out compete those who do not.
I am not quite sure there has been someone like Sanders has come along before, at least not in quite some time. And outside the bernie or bust morons the majority of us socialists supported Bernie in spite of the fact that we never believed he would "win". "Winning" for us was not about getting Sanders elected to the presidency. The Strategy was to build upon the success and knowledge of the last democratic primary.
Use the Sanders campaign to push the overton window on a national level.
Use the Sanders campaign to push the overton window on a state level.
Use the Sanders campaign to push the overton window within the democratic primary.
Use the Sanders campaign to build local coalitions that will exist after the primaries and after the general elections.
Upon building these local coalitions shift focus from national and state politics to municipal and county level with a stronger focus on off year elections.
Upon building these local coalitions build interlocking participation with other local coalitions to focus on state level politics to push SocDem causes and legislation. Where able push DemSoc causes.
Upon Building these local coalitions begin subverting and co-opting liberal controlled local (D)emocrat political machinery.
The purpose and function of the Sanders campaign was not to elect Bernie. The purpose was to use the Sanders campaign to find like minded individuals and organize locally. This is a tactic which Bernie himself supports, endorses, and advocates.
It has been recognized and is a demonstrable fact that the FBI did a damn good job busting up the leftists during the 60's and 70's. Leftism as a movement stagnated during the 80's and 90's for the most part. It began to reorganize itself during the mid 2000's. Until ~2015 (so about 10 years) Leftism rose and grew in starts and stops. More or less it's been rebuilding from the ground up learning from the past. Leftists have been using much the same tactics as those used by the Christian Right as laid out in the "Seven Mountains of Influence".
This does nothing to really win anyone over. China is the most horribly over leveraged country in the history of the world. They literally shove trillions of dollars of stimulus into their economy every year just to keep it running. And that's even after they undercut their trade partners, steal other nation's technological secrets, and dump their products in new and creative ways on foreign markets. China is a massive parasite that is beginning to run out of other people's money and charity. A parasite that has convinced itself to be the new king of the world.
This lacks the historical perspective. While what China is doing is unquestioningly repugnant it is at the very least also interesting. Do not bet me wrong as to how it is interesting. It is interesting in a morbid sort of way. They are modernizing which on a technical level would be interesting on its own. What truly makes it interesting however is that they are also implementing an America post WWII economic plan (ie own as much stuff and as many other countries as you possibly can). The myth that China is over leveraged is just that. While people focus on the debt side of the equation what gets overlooked or ignored is the production side of things. Again don't get me wrong. China is going to create several mountains of bodies in the process but that has never stopped Chinese governments modern or historical. They are successfully buying up the world right from under the United States which means that there are a lot of off the books assets which shrink that leverage to a more manageable degree.
I don't want to give the wrong impression though. While I can analyze what China is doing and recognize the benefits it has for China, this does not mean that I think this is good for the rest of the world. Because I don't. I thin if China get's its way the world will be even more fucked. The one and only thing the world has going for it right now is the Chinese population bust. As disgusting as it is the population bust is partly behind the move of the Chinese government to do what it is doing. From a statist/fascist perspective China is doing the right thing. Utilize your large labor population to build as much as you can as quickly as you can to support the much smaller population that will remain behind thus propelling yourself ahead by 70 years. It's basically the Maoist Industrialization Plan but more humane (more humane is not the same as humane) and carried out over a longer time scale with less brutality and violence (less being the operative word). At this point while China should be stopped I am unaware of any currently practicable plans to stop them. The fact that Trump fucked up the Pacific trade agreement which was an economic defense agreement and not an actual trade agreement took the one thing that could at least halt China off the table.
Which is one reason I hate communists. Even the best ones are still bad.
It's also the most powerful nation in existence at the moment that practices slave labor, engages in racial (and religious) discrimination up to and including concentration camps, and has institutionalized husband replacement. And in case you didn't read between the lines, that means thousands of ethnic minorities in China are being raped. And then the next morning they have the privilege of getting up and serving her rapist breakfast.
Oh I am aware of the horrors carried out by China. I am also aware that there is nothing we or anyone else can do to stop them at this point. Which is frightening. China's natural resources which rival's the US which is one of the most natural resource rich countries in the world and it's long history of isolationism makes it impervious. It's the old problem of swallowing the dragon.
Oh, so this is the typical "stoner needs a job, but doesn't want to work, so he should be able to set his own standards, his own rules, and his own hours" socialism, isn't it? So tell me, if someone is hurt on the factory floor, who pays? Because if everyone owns it, then everyone is liable. Which is about as good as saying no-one does, because everyone in the factory, not wanting to share their resources, will trend towards insisting that the victim was negligent.
You would have the answer to this question if you were not a lazy fuck and actually bothered to spend just a small amount of time and look at how such problems have been addressed both in theory and in practice
Ultimate Research Document section 1 is coops. Most people are not insane or irrational like reactionaries and realize that they may be the one who is injured and thus develop ways of addressing such cases.
Further one of the biggest problems we are facing right now is work (as much as reactionaries hate the idea) is about to become obsolete for the most part. There is a serious crisis on the horizon within the next 10 years as more companies automate. Even low level jobs will become more and more difficult to obtain. Pretending that it's not happening or that things will go on more or less as they are just slightly different is foolish and untrue. We can either figure out what we are going to do about this second industrial revolution or we can get caught flat footed like we did last time. I prefer to learn from history.
Translation: "I've never worked hard for anything before, why start now? Someone else should just GIVE ME my freedom and wealth."
Wow you really are a dumb fuck aren't you? I mean every time I think you cannot say anything more stupid you manage to prove me wrong. Hey fuckface. I'm part of the 4% of the 4%. Grew up in honest to goodness poverty and not the "My parents have a television and 2 cars" poverty. The "If I have this packet of knock off ramen now then I won't have it tomorrow and mom doesn't get her food stamps until next week" poverty. I busted my ass and got incredibly lucky whereas most of my friends did not. I got to go to university and have done moderately well for myself. If you pull that cynicism stick out of that shithole of yours "I am not insane enough to want to be in charge of anything." doesn't mean I am lazy. It means I have lower, middle, and upper management experience and hated every second of it. Lot's of work with very little reward and not enough pay. When you are on salary and you are making barely more than the brand new hire because you are putting in so much overtime because your short staffed. Ya totally worth it. When you get to have the employees vent their frustration on you because the company decided to make an arbitrary change that makes no sense and makes everyone's life more difficult. Totally worth it. When the bubble bursts and you have to sit each employee down and explain they either have to take a pay cut making it harder for them to pay rent and feed their kids or they can loose their job all together because the company wasn't prepared to withstand the shock. Ya totally worth it. Being the boss is a shit job unless your just a lazy fucking boss. It doesn't matter what company your at its the same. Being the boss you either run yourself into the ground or your lazy as fuck. I hated lazy bosses and so never became one. The last company I was a boss at I quit and promised never again. I've stuck to it and never regretted it. The pay is not worth the migraine.
Been there. Done that. Road that roller-coaster several times already. No sir I would not like another ride. I don't care how much you pay me.
So let me get this straight. You actively have no faith in any one person to do the right thing, but you somehow think that groups of people if trusted to do the right thing to form a socialist society, will do the right thing? And what happens when people form into small tribes so they can just TAKE what they want? What happens when Yankeedom disarms itself in a military, economic, and cultural sense and Appalachia just marches up armies of hicks on trucks and systematically wipes us out?
First you are conflating Neo-Liberalism and Leftism. Let's take this one at a time.
*You actively have no faith in any one person
to do the right thing,
but you somehow think that groups of people if trusted to do the right thing to form a socialist society, will do the right thing?
I actively have no faith in any one person, I do however believe that individuals will do what is in their best interest, this being the case distributing power broadly and creating systems of checks and balances will reduce but not eliminate corruption and abuses of power.
*And what happens when people form into small tribes so they can just TAKE what they want?
The problem is addressed systemically. What did they take? Why did they take it? Do they have the cognitive ability to understand the consequences of their actions? On both the individual and group level the questions are the same and serve the same function. Restoration of the grieved individual as much as possible, and addressing the root cause of the theft. The objective is to treat the disease whenever possible and not the symptoms. In the worst cases this means removal from society when the cases are neurological in origin and have no treatment at the moment.
*What happens when Yankeedom disarms itself in a military, economic, and cultural sense and Appalachia just marches up armies of hicks on trucks and systematically wipes us out?
I am sorry you must have mistaken me for a liberal. I do not advocate for gun control policies, in fact the opposite. I want gun liberalization policies. In terms of military disarmament the existence of the US military is illegal and unconstitutional. The US is not supposed to have a standing military nor to engage in imperialism. That said as things are in the world today standing down the US military would be a disaster and I oppose it. I can only guess what you mean by economic disarmament and well... duh. If I am understanding what you mean correctly (and I very well might not be) I want economic disarmament. The thing is I don't think you realized exactly how much you admitted in this term. I am against people being able to accumulate so much wealth that they are able to use it as a weapon. An economy should not be a weapon. As far as cultural disarmament goes I have no idea what that even means. 1) cultures do not have rights individuals do. 2) no culture has a right to exist. 3) no culture has a right to not change (assuming such a thing were possible and its not).
Now to more fully answer your question I need to ask a question. Why are the people from the Appalachia coming up to wipe us out systematically? I am a bit lost as to the motivation for genocide let alone theft. I am going to need something a bit more than because I said so. Depending on the motivation there are a number of ways to address the situation such that it does not nor can it arise. There are other motivations that may still arise and in such a case I expect they would be met with a violent greeting. The problem I am having is that your scenario is so absurd that I am having trouble actually imagining it. If it is absurd because it is just absurd or if it is absurd because there is a lack of relevant detail I am uncertain. Given that the tone of the question indicates that it is an argument from emotion I am willing to bet that it is absurd because it is absurd. But I am willing to be shown wrong.
You do realize that in order for your dream to become a reality, you would need to wield highly concentrated power? Highly centralized, highly concentrated power? And that even with the full might of the US Federal government at your command, you would be unable to enforce those laws upon the Deep South and Appalachia? Whose local governments would laugh and ignore you?
If I or socialists in general took the approach you seem to be implying you are absolutely correct. The problem is that you are conflating Marxism with all of socialism. And such an approach as the one you seem to
think I advocate for would be doomed to fail. Such an approach
could never work. So rather than give into my temptation and spell it out for you ask yourself. If I reject outright a top down approach. If that is just taken off the table. And assuming that such a society as I advocate for is possible. What steps would be necessary to get from here to there? Assume our base social and civil structures. Do not just assume it cannot be done. I will give you the first three for free.
1) addressing the systemic causes of poverty to reduce crime.
2) introduction of required Critical Reasoning courses in 5th, 7th, 9th and 12th grades.
Take note as you try to construct the model the first change is not a tax policy. Neither is the second. They are systemic institutional changes.
The third change is a tax policy change, but it is a change of distribution and not collection.
3) Restructuring the way in which monies are distributed to school districts such that the total number of dollars collected goes proportionally to each student. In other words the total $ is divided up among the total population of students equally. If Mr. and Mrs Smith decide they want to send their little johnny to private school fine but that comes out of their pocket not out of the taxes they pay. If they don't want to send him to private school then Johnny gets the same education as everyone else.
What happens then stoner? You gonna send in your centrally controlled federal military force to invade? Because you have no means of forcing either of those cultural bastions to obey you. Appalachians have historically chosen to be dirt poor and free than follow whatever the Federal government tells them--even when it is undoubtedly in their best interest. And the Deep South would only pretend to comply, while ruthlessly exploiting every loophole or undermining any probing into their system. You'd have more luck getting the Russians to actually cut oil output.
What makes it amusing to me that you keep calling me stoner is that I have a near phobia of all drugs. Comes from a family of druggies as well as a bad personal experience against my will as a child.[/quote] For some reason you believe me ignorant of the material conditions. What the fuck makes you think... Oh shit I just realized. Unholy fuck that is funny. You think I'm a god damn Yankee. I am not sure if I should be amused or insulted. Well... From first hand experience I know exactly the cultures you are referring to. I also know the tactics which will be employed to retard every step. It's the same ones the south and the Appalachians have been using since the civil war. It's really simple. You don't give them a choice. Using a combination of soft power (mostly) and occasionally hard power compliance can easily be enforced.
First the hard power. Red states are a leech on the tax system receiving far more than they pay in. That is power that can be leveraged. The same thing with red counties. It is simple enough to ruin Red States and counties in very subtle ways slowly draining away their populations until the land and other assets become available for pennies on the dollar. At that point you buy up as many assets as possible and then carpet bag the hell out of the place and tada. Blue county. Blue state. The trick is in how you do it. Senator's nice little pork-barrel project. Nope. County was supposed to get money to help boost it's economy. Sorry that money was needed elsewhere. Death by a thousand papercuts all the while the opposition doesn't draw attention to the fact that the state or county isn't getting pork projects. Instead the opposition is talking about how much worse things have gotten and maybe someone ought to replace politician joe.
Soft power takes the form of subtle memetic alteration namely through the use of entertainment and news media. Sticking strictly to the question of news media one does not begin by barging in and immediately challenging the establishment. Instead one undermines it slowly over time. Modern news is no longer news and one takes full advantage of that fact (See How FoxNews Changed News Forever). Discover your base and shape your news to fit their expected model. At first stick to the model strictly. After a while on very rare occasion when one is able to frame the news first frame it slightly outside the standard expected and audience acceptable narrative. There are two key feature which are important here. 1) When a framing opportunity arises and it is viable to take it always make sure what is presented is 100% factually correct. 2) Lying is only acceptable if it is to give the intended audience an expected frame. (this is how you alter confirmation bias). Basically follow the right wing model and tell the truth as you can get away with it.
From an entertainment perspective ramp up inclusion in all entertainment across all formats. The basic idea here being to normalize the other. The objective here is to move to a point where in order to escape inclusion one must remove themselves from the larger cultural narrative and discussion thus making themselves irrelevant.
As a bonus providing job opportunities for youths in poor rural areas that allow them to escape their situation is a plus.
Someone here once said i was dangerous. I have spent a very long time devising models to deconstruct and reconstruct various social structures and poured thousands of hours into research on belief reformation, social development patters, memetics, and much much more. The thing you learn about war-gaming things like this is that it's not enough to figure out what steps you need to take. You have to then step onto the other side and try to break it. I may have problems with Hegel but the dialectic concept was brilliant.
But that would leave you horribly unqualified to hold an opinion outside of whether consumables are better than blunts.
I am actually unqualified to hold an opinion on which is better. My understanding is that it's primarily an aesthetic preference and given that I don't consume drugs and rarely consume alcohol it's not something I am fit to judge.
So is this a pathetic attempt to undermine someone's resistance to socialism by getting them to argue it for you or are you so fucking stoned that you need someone to argue for your side? Because I don't know of anyone who would want to take on the argument of a side that has historically proven to be horribly corrupt and incapable of enacting the social and economic change promised.
I can argue for capitalism and it will not undermine my view of socialism and if it does then my view of socialism was wrong. Just as I can argue for flat earth and creationism without either undermining my resistance to them. I am quite sober. What I think however is that you are not paying attention out of fear that I might start making sense. If you are able to present either my argument or arguments which are close enough to mine as makes no difference I at the very least know that you understand what positions I am putting forth and that this is a genuine disagreement. given that you cannot go what seems like a single sentence without strawmanning me however I very much doubt that you are capable of such a thing.
Hey I know! How about instead of having fought the Civil War to end slavery, we argue for the Slave Owners and the Slave Owners argue for us! And when we pants them with their own arguments, they could have gone shamefully home and continue to be despotic slave owners!
Well aren't you just cute and precious and very very stupid. Yes prior to the outbreak of the civil war abolitionists and slave owners did exactly what I am here proposing. What is interesting is to look at the number of slave owners who changed their mind because of this. Formal debate has a long and honored history and (most of the time) you never know which side you are going to have to take so you must learn the arguments for and against a given proposition. It is also useful to know at least generally speaking how your opponent is going to respond to a given objection or line of inquiry so that you can prepare a cogent response and actually address what they are saying.
Funny. Could have sworn that most capitalist countries aren't failed states. All forms of economy will impose some form of compliance and loss in life. Not to mention the occasional atrocity or two. And yet, communist regimes not only top this, but they tend to quickly implode upon themselves.
Actually.... You better check again. While Marxist Leninist states certainly has it's tally that tally actually pales in consideration when held to a list of capitalist failed states. Left communism has a slightly better track record than ML but not by much and they certainly aren't any place I would like to live. But then I'm not a communist.
No retard.
Humans are almost completely incapable of defining something first and then having reality follow. Humans observe their surroundings and attempt to categorize them as a means to understand them and then use it for their own benefit. Because we are a tool-using species. Language allowed us to convey these concepts not only to each other, but in time, to define it more accurately. When you define something and then wait to sit around and see that reality follows, you are either a liar or a retard.
What the actual fuck. And you have the gall to call me a retard. Your mental degeneracy must be much greater than I imagined. I was actually physically startled by your stupidity here. what the absolute actual fuck? "Humans are almost completely incapable of defining something first and then having reality follow." Um... Yes and the fact that you believe I think otherwise after I have in no way indicated that demonstrates that you sir are the retard. As you would have noted if you had actually been paying attention at no point have I indicated that I would not agree with "Humans observe their surroundings and attempt to categorize them as a means to understand them and then use it for their own benefit.". In fact I very much agree with that statement as is indicated by everything I have said. Definitions come about during the process of categorization. You have two things.
FIRST you define these two things. What are their characteristics? What characteristics do they have in common? What characteristics do they not have in common? FIRST We construct the definition first.
SECOND then we see if those things match the definition.
THIRD when we come across a third thing then we see if they fit the previous definitions if not we create a new definition. If the thing matches one of the existing definitions very closely we may nuance a previous definition by creating sub-categories.
How fucking mentally handicap are you?
Or a stoner about to get lit.
After being subjected to your stupidity for so long perhaps I should reconsider my drug phobia.
You act as though 99% of countries picked their names through some sort of national think tank involving the vast majority or the entire nation. As opposed to selected elite who chose the name either based on personal preference, historical precedence, cultural identity, or political (or personal) convenience. The reason why, you blazer, that 90% of the countries that include Democratic or Republic in their names that are anything but, is for the purpose of branding. Both for internal and external consumption.
It can learn. 90% of the countries that include X or Y in their names that are anything but, is for the purpose of branding. Yes branding. Correct me if I am wrong but socialism was a rather popular brand in Germany at the time. So. And follow the argument. If a bunch of racist fascists wanted to seize power and hijack a populist movement. Should they adopt a name that brodcasts their true intent? Or... Should they hijack a popular brand name and incorporate it into their name? Which do you think is the smarter move from a marketing perspective?
Yes no one in history ever hijacked populist movements to place themselves in positions of power and turn themselves into authoritarian dictators. (See the french evolution, see Cormwell, See Napoleon. Again I can make an exhaustive list that goes back even farther and covers all areas of the globe.) But of course. This problem is a problem which only happens with socialism. Never in the entire history of the world when new economic or political orders are attempting to be brought about does this happen. They of course come perfectly into being just like Athena on the first try.
So wait, you understand that people can hijack movements, but not governmental structure brands to suit their own purpose? You at a Bake Sale right now boi?[/quote] Now your just trying to gaslight me. I really fucking hate when people try to gaslight me. Don't stand on your head and tell me I am upside down. This has been my argument from the very beginning and it's in the very first post I made in this thread. Go fist yourself. Yes my point is that socialism predates Marx. That Nazi's hijacked a popular brand for political capital. That Hitlers/the Nazi's definition of socialism was not only atypical at the time but that it bore no relation to any previous definition of socialism. And thus to attempt to lump it in with socialism is in appropriate. Can you actually understand the fucking argument? Do I need to use smaller words? Would pictures help?
"Like, did ya know bro...the church did some bad things...so they're responsible for all evil in the world bro?"
Nice pivot. Very nice pivot. Do you play professional basket ball by chance? The statement in which that was in response to was 'christians were responsible for anti-christian sentiment in russia?' to which I responded in the affirmative with an explanation as to why. You then proceed to pivot by changing the subject as to why the Christian Churches were treated the way they were to a stupid and childish assertion that because the russian orthodox church did evil shit that somehow means that the russian orthodox church is responsible for all of the evil in the entire world. Considering that the russian orthodox church is mostly confined to... ya know russia. this is patently absurd and stupid. but then.. well you.
Or maybe...just maybe, it has to do with the fact that the ethnic Russians, living in the Hordelands, have practiced physical and psychological means of divide and conquer for hundreds of years in one form of another and in fact has nothing to do with Christian beliefs that originated in a completely different geopolitical region?
Man the pivots keep coming. The only thing I explained was the causal relation between the way the Orthodox Christian Church was treated and it's treatment of the peasants. It was a justified if not justifiable eye for an eye.
Grab a map or a globe bro. Why do you think the religious policies that began in the Middle East would be at all suitable for people in the Hordelands?
WTF are you talking about? Seriously. What are you talking about? Do you have any idea at all about the socio-political development of Russia? Do you have any idea at all about the socio-religious development of Russia? Fuck. For that matter do you have any idea about the socio-political development of Eastern Orthodoxy? Because what you just said tells me no, you don't. You are just grabbing at straws.
Tell me, which bong did you get these historical facts from? Because while famines did happen in medieval times due to mismanagement, neglect, and corruption...they were most often the result of humans being unable to have enough control over their production capabilities. And the more power and control you wield over the population, the greater the results will be. For good or for ill.
When companies come in and take control of a company and export 90% of the food in a highly populated region. Famine. When companies come in and take control of country and plant banana trees and the locals are no longer able to grow enough food to eat famine. When companies engage in activities which destroy the local environment for generation famine. All of these real world example. Maybe you should read a little history from time to time. You know. Other than WWII. Also I don't believe I was talking about medieval times. I believe I was talking about famines caused by capitalism. So yet again you pivot.
"I don't read like normal people brah, I can take one hit and I just...I just blaze through...like, I don't feel like I'm even reading it anymore...it's more like a dream. I can taste everything brah."
I know the fact that someone is well read must be really intimidating. I mean you've finished what? Three books in your life. Let's see what were the books you read again? See spot run. Little red riding hood. And Green Eggs and Ham.
"Like, we should just Dwarnize Christans brah. It's only white people anyway brah. Like amigo Jose would never vote for an international religious institution that has abused its powers and authority in the past brah. Throw open the borders brah. Free love."
leaving aside the fact that I have no idea what Dwarnize Christians is supposed to mean or the rather stupid and shallow statement that they are only white people. Yes you might say I believe in survival of the fittest idea.
I doubt that is the case here. Most of the people here are pro-Trump, which means most of them actually believe that there is too much power centralized in too few hands and that they prefer more power in local governments. This is not an unreasonable position, because most of the people here are from states whose culture has not been treated well in the recent (or even ancient) past by the Feds. Or so they feel.
the fact that you can say that unironically is disturbing.
And the US has always tried to balance the communal good favored by Yankeedom, Midlanders, Left Coast, New Netherlands, and Tidewater with the libertarian desire for personal freedoms as pursued by the Deep South and Appalachia. And so too has every major US founding culture opposed any imposition by large, international religious organizations via the Catholic Church. New Englanders were Puritans fleeing the Catholic & England Church, Tidewater followed the Anglican Church (England Church) who despised the Catholics, Appalachian religious groups opposed any kind of organized religion outside of themselves, and the Midlanders were primarily composed of Quakers.
Granting that it tried (which I am not sure I do) it failed to either to balance power or to prevent the accumulation of power in the hands of a few. I am well aware of American religious history as well as its at times lunatic opposition to the catholic church.
The devil was never, not even once, presented as the good guy. That's even if you look at the actual historical resources of the Bible, not just the modern one based off flawed editing, localization, and re-telling. He was at best, always a tool of Yahweh. Nor was Yahweh ever presented as a psychopath. Indeed, the views on God changed throughout history. And that's even setting aside the merging and divorce of previous deities as He moved through cultures and time.
Read the DSRM 5 on psychopathy and then read the OT. He fits the diagnosis to a T.
Really, you have to be a complete fucking berk to assert your atheist, science-based position and then completely ignore actual academic research on the historical aspect of God.
So... not an atheist. Also not ignoring the actual academic work. Again you are gasliting me. I was explicit in saying that my description was true but not and that it was an oversimplification. As to the devil being a good guy that very much depends on several factors including where one considers the devil to first be introduced within the text. But yes on the whole the devil is considered a tool of Yahweh within most traditions. Interestingly enough the devil does not exist within Judaism. The jewish Has'satan and the Christian Satan are not actually the same character even though you would think they were.
