Politics/Slapfights - Ancient history to modern day!

[Alienmorph]

If it did actually cause an discourse worth having on the subject, then it's actually a good thing, regardless of the movie's quality.

But that poster... yeah, who chose that one over the original, much less provocative one, should ask himself (or herself) a question or two about their sexuality...

[Vol]

https://tennesseestar.com/2020/08/15/ru ... lassrooms/

What possible information could a _public school teacher_ need to keep private between them and the children in their care that _parents_ cannot be aware? Such a bizarre intrusion into private life these weirdos insist on. Any teacher that requires secrecy in the classroom should be the ones who never receive any, lest they further denigrate us.

Re: Cuties - When it comes to this topic, my very first and most important criteria is if real children are being harmed in any way. If so, it is evil, and those who produce it aught be given a fair trial and speedy execution. If not, then it doesn't matter, free speech fiction is sacrosanct. This clearly falls between, which makes it all complicated and stuff. The topic of premature sexualization of the prepubescent is fair grounds for an artistic work, of course, as it's a pertinent moral and legal issue for all of history. In this case, the American marketing was very poor if the film itself is supposed to portray the girls behaving like sexual objects as bad.

That said, even if the message of the film is that the sexualization is bad, that doesn't mean the creators are pure in intent and deed. And because entertainment is especially rife with sex perverts and pedophiles, I would treat them with immense skepticism and no assumption of good intent. The act of having girls dress up like whores to, I assume, dance like them as well, is suspicious if your audience is not pedophiles, but rather normal people who would find not that an acceptable act.

In this movie, the girls are supposed to be 11, I believe. That's too young for being marketed as sex objects, without a doubt. I would imagine most western 11 year olds are inundated with all the insipid hip hop shit that has so thoroughly permeated my culture, so I would also imagine they do twerk and dress like that among friends. Adults are not to be included in that, physically or voyeuristically. We can have a conversation about what is or isn't "right" for kids starting puberty to know or do, but it should be incontrovertible that adults are not getting off on it or facilitating it happening.

TLDR: Fictional kids -> Do whatever you want. Real kids -> Protect. Art -> Sacrosanct. People who make movies -> Suspicious. This movie -> Gaudy at best.

[Alienmorph]

The thing that annoys me is that Cuties is already getting phraised by the usual crowd of hypocrites, the same ones who have had a summer-long meltdown because of a show with a shortstack busty anime girl in her 20s. So I guess questionable at best live action material is art, but anime is crap only pedos like. And no, I'm not paraphrasing.

Double standards are fun. Not.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

The thing that annoys me is that Cuties is already getting phraised by the usual crowd of hypocrites, the same ones who have had a summer-long meltdown because of a show with a shortstack busty anime girl in her 20s. So I guess questionable at best live action material is art, but anime is crap only pedos like. And no, I'm not paraphrasing.

Double standards are fun. Not.

That's because the usual crowd has goals. Not principles.

[Mazder]

Re: Cuties - When it comes to this topic, my very first and most important criteria is if real children are being harmed in any way. If so, it is evil, and those who produce it aught be given a fair trial and speedy execution. If not, then it doesn't matter, free speech fiction is sacrosanct. This clearly falls between, which makes it all complicated and stuff. The topic of premature sexualization of the prepubescent is fair grounds for an artistic work, of course, as it's a pertinent moral and legal issue for all of history. In this case, the American marketing was very poor if the film itself is supposed to portray the girls behaving like sexual objects as bad.

That said, even if the message of the film is that the sexualization is bad, that doesn't mean the creators are pure in intent and deed. And because entertainment is especially rife with sex perverts and pedophiles, I would treat them with immense skepticism and no assumption of good intent. The act of having girls dress up like whores to, I assume, dance like them as well, is suspicious if your audience is not pedophiles, but rather normal people who would find not that an acceptable act.

In this movie, the girls are supposed to be 11, I believe. That's too young for being marketed as sex objects, without a doubt. I would imagine most western 11 year olds are inundated with all the insipid hip hop shit that has so thoroughly permeated my culture, so I would also imagine they do twerk and dress like that among friends. Adults are not to be included in that, physically or voyeuristically. We can have a conversation about what is or isn't "right" for kids starting puberty to know or do, but it should be incontrovertible that adults are not getting off on it or facilitating it happening.

TLDR: Fictional kids -> Do whatever you want. Real kids -> Protect. Art -> Sacrosanct. People who make movies -> Suspicious. This movie -> Gaudy at best.

The main problem is if the original message is pointing out the horrible oversexualization in the industry then Netflix have just played themselves by being party to it by having an oversexualized poster.

Any beauty pageants of anyone under 18 is straight fucked. To be fair most beauty pageants are straight fucked anyway because they're usually just cruel crowds of narcissists trotting themselves up on stage to be judged on how they look, fitting themselves into random standards when all they'd need to get that same affection these days is to flash their tits on OnlyFans.

Even on just the case of "why are you judging beauty on a body still developing?", which is the kindest take you can have from the bloody pageants.
The art angle is kinda just bollocks as those who claim "well this movie is just art pointing out the problems" can also turn around and spout all the bullshit of the "artistry" of beauty pageants.

[Sinekein]

The movie is not only about hypersexualization of prepubescent teens, and is absolutely not promoting it, no matter how tasteless the Netflix advertisement is.

It is the story of a muslim kid who belongs to a very religious and conservative family - polygamous father, women supposed to stay home and cook, a lot of time spent at the mosque... - and who becomes friends with a kid her age who is part of a dancing group. But that group, like those of older girls, is emulating TV celebrities, so they dance and dress like them, and the skimpier their clothes, the more successful they are on social networks where sexiness tends to give more and more thumbs ups or likes.

The message of the movie is that neither puritan conservatism nor constant exposition to lewd role models are any good, and that families should make sure that young kids can grow up in healthy situations where they don't ever have to choose between two wrongs.

It also is critical of "sexy feminism", because of how thin the line is between female empowerment - the kind that Beyoncé tends to be extremely good at - and gratuitous "sex sells" - more like Nicki Minaj - because many young girls aren't able to understand the difference and can easily fall into the worst aspects of it. And of course it takes a jab at the way online popularity works, a system that rewards (sexy) form over substance.

For the record there was no shitstorm here in France when trailers or movie posters were revealed or when it was shown in film festivals. And I highly doubt there would have been any issue in Europe overall because I daresay Europe is infinitely less schizophrenic regarding sexual matters than the US.

[Mazder]

Yeah, it's just sad that Netflix decided to go with the poster that was more on the side of the over sexualised side the film is against. I mean, I'll say it again, they played themselves.

Unless this is a big plot to trick some of the dumb child beauty pageant watchers into seeing how bad their shit is. If so then bravo, good move. But I doubt it.

[TheodoricFriede]

I'll say again, if that poster made you feel gross, that was probably the point.

[Sinekein]

I'm not even sure the marketing for Hard Candy would be tolerated today.

[Vol]

*snip*

The issue being there is no delineation between awful human beings flaunting their evil via film and a genuine, but extremely controversial work of art intended to invoke awkward feelings and conversations. Lolita being an obvious example of a work that is art, but also controversial. Which I would assume is far more deftly done than whatever this movie does.

As for the pageants, that's a whole 'nother topic we could go into, but a fucking mess too.

The movie is not only about hypersexualization of prepubescent teens, and is absolutely not promoting it, no matter how tasteless the Netflix advertisement is.

It is the story of a muslim kid who belongs to a very religious and conservative family - polygamous father, women supposed to stay home and cook, a lot of time spent at the mosque... - and who becomes friends with a kid her age who is part of a dancing group. But that group, like those of older girls, is emulating TV celebrities, so they dance and dress like them, and the skimpier their clothes, the more successful they are on social networks where sexiness tends to give more and more thumbs ups or likes.

The message of the movie is that neither puritan conservatism nor constant exposition to lewd role models are any good, and that families should make sure that young kids can grow up in healthy situations where they don't ever have to choose between two wrongs.

It also is critical of "sexy feminism", because of how thin the line is between female empowerment - the kind that Beyoncé tends to be extremely good at - and gratuitous "sex sells" - more like Nicki Minaj - because many young girls aren't able to understand the difference and can easily fall into the worst aspects of it. And of course it takes a jab at the way online popularity works, a system that rewards (sexy) form over substance.

For the record there was no shitstorm here in France when trailers or movie posters were revealed or when it was shown in film festivals. And I highly doubt there would have been any issue in Europe overall because I daresay Europe is infinitely less schizophrenic regarding sexual matters than the US.

That's about what I expected the plot to be once I heard there was more to it than the poster. I'm reminded of the comically bad Lifetime movie about the teen boy who gets addicted to (the most vanilla possible) internet porn and it ruins his life, and how ridiculous it was then, despite looking at it with a new perspective now. It was very anti-porn, obviously, and the results of his "addiction" were dramatized to absurdity, such as being bullied harshly by other boys for looking at tits on the internet. Even in ye olden days of the 90s, that was _cool_. The film was insipid, but if you look at with the perspective that, yes, the events it depicts are retarded, the dangers, overblown, but porn does appear to have a negative effect on young men, and is very ubiquitous, so study is warranted, then an awful movie with a silly Aesop then gains value for the spirit of the message they failed to convey competently. Right for the wrong reasons, in a way.

As for "sexy feminism," I largely agree. It's all quite complicated, but at the least, there is a degree of self-respect lost in the trashiness of pop culture, even if coated in a message of empowerment. Some famous hip hop singer, a woman, who I know nothing about, was forcibly brought to my attention, because one of her super famous new songs has a segment about men who have BBQ sauce on their penises due to poor hygiene then having sex with her, which along with the visuals of a prole's idea of an artsy mansion, painted a rather bleak picture of what young girls might be looking up to.

One of the areas I envy the French is the attitude towards sexuality. Annoyingly irreverent sometimes, sure, but the overall healthier perspective is like cold water with a splash of lemon after chugging room temperature swill.

[Sinekein]

For the record, most criticism of the movie here comes from idiots complaining that it is not a positive portrayal of Islam.

[TTTX]

decided to move this from the movie thread, because this is where this responds belongs.

SJW's dont like Jews.

We are an 'oppressed people' who are also extremely successful. It fucks with the narrative.

Its not a matter of subtlety, its a matter of they dont care.

well that's because 1 they are hypocrites 2 it's not about making stuff better, but about power and money, the Nazi, Sovjets and Mao political party did a lot of similar stuff to gain power and money in the 1917, 20's, 30's and 40's they use the people who are discontent about something and get them pumped up on how they can change things and well people suffer.

[Azint]

I'll say again, if that poster made you feel gross, that was probably the point.

I'm reminded of the little kerfuffle when Nirvana released their album, Nevermind, which depicts a naked baby with just about everything shown swimming in a pool*. The record company was concerned that the naked baby would make them look bad, i.e. promoting pedophilia, and Kurt Cobain insisted that anyone who takes issue with it is likely a pedophile in denial, in his usual rebellious and nonchalant manner. He and the company compromised to not censor the album art, and in place have an easily removable sticker for retail purposes.

*Just in case you live under a rock and didn't know what Nevermind was.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xzwkxb8TkFA

Gotta hand it to the Dems. They're running the best Trump Reelection campaign I've ever seen.

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

[Mobius_118]

One incident vs many right wing acts of terror.

Fuck off, child. We've seen your act before and it's beyond old.

[Vol]

I'm reminded of the little kerfuffle when Nirvana released their album, Nevermind, which depicts a naked baby with just about everything shown swimming in a pool*. The record company was concerned that the naked baby would make them look bad, i.e. promoting pedophilia, and Kurt Cobain insisted that anyone who takes issue with it is likely a pedophile in denial, in his usual rebellious and nonchalant manner. He and the company compromised to not censor the album art, and in place have an easily removable sticker for retail purposes.

*Just in case you live under a rock and didn't know what Nevermind was.

Remember that cover clearly. Because I didn't understand what a naked baby swimming for a dollar had to do with anything. Which I suppose was the point of the first impression. Good album tho. Has the first song I ever enjoyed on it, and whose name I can never remember.

Though as far as I know, NIrvana was not a den of sexual exploitation, so much as they were exploited by groupies (I assume), as opposed to the sort of people who make and produce movies.

One incident vs many right wing acts of terror.

Fuck off, child. We've seen your act before and it's beyond old.

A definitive criteria of what qualifies as a violent act of a political cause would be rather useful here. Playing semantics can support that left-wing terrorism is a rampant and a dire threat, or, doesn't exist, and that right-wing death squads are executing people all over the place, or, they're pussies who don't do shit. Clearly, the extremes are not true, but it's real hard to nail down what's done for a _cause_ and what isn't. Is a murder during a political action, but isn't necessarily linked, partisan terrorism? What if the people siding with the political action excuse or downplay the murder, is that tacit acceptance? Fuck if I know.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

One incident vs many right wing acts of terror.

Fuck off, child. We've seen your act before and it's beyond old.

Seattle, Portland, Richmond. Need I go on?

Your side is destroying these firmly democratic cities Mobius. You're deluded if you can't see it.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

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

And Because Mobius is a delusional moron who deserves to be laughed at.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kio1uzb4KvY

So I figured I'd post a few more videos.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fp07rpYvCMY

Because honestly I've lost my tolerance for his bigoted religion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kl7O_OIWjS0

He deserves to see his side lose and lose badly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6i0C-32gpZA

And I can't wait to watch him sputter and ree come November.

[Mobius_118]

And yet your entire argument is destroyed by a single event in Wisconsin, GAC.

Like a I said, child. Your game is old and boring. Best you run along now.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

And yet your entire argument is destroyed by a single event in Wisconsin, GAC.

Like a I said, child. Your game is old and boring. Best you run along now.

Kek. You don't have anything Mobius. You never did. You're hollow like your ideals.

That thug deserved to get shot.

[Mobius_118]

Did he now? For what...breaking up a fight between two white women and declining giving a statement?

Last I checked during my police training, a person doesn't have to give a statement.

He's paralyzed now for acting within his legal rights. Glad you've admitted you're the racist shitbag we all knew you were.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Did he now? For what...breaking up a fight between two white women and declining giving a statement?

Last I checked during my police training, a person doesn't have to give a statement.

He's paralyzed now for acting within his legal rights. Glad you've admitted you're the racist shitbag we all knew you were.

That's not what happened you deluded cultist. But it is the media approved narrative. So there's zero fucking surprise that that's what you think. That's literally always your opinion. Whatever the media narrative is. That's your thoughts.

Whatever the media buzzwords are that's what you'll parrot. I've rarely met someone who so accurately captures the meme of the NPC. God it's going to feel good to watch you lose.

[Mobius_118]

Media? Nah.

The actual police call, his involvement, the law...He was completely within his legal rights to refuse making a statement. Who's studied to become law enforcement here again? The answer is me, not you.

Shut your dumbass up real quick.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Media? Nah.

The actual police call, his involvement, the law...He was completely within his legal rights to refuse making a statement. Who's studied to become law enforcement here again? The answer is me, not you.

Shut your dumbass up real quick.

Nah. I'm having fun Mobius. That guy had a warrant out. Already fought with the cops, then refused to obey orders. They were within their rights to shot him.

Good that they did. if he's paralyzed I doubt he'll manage any sexual assaults going forward. Of course since he survived it'll be harder to make this thug a martyr like the others.

[Mobius_118]

By that same statement, donald "grab em by the pussy" trump should be shot by police because he's a sexual predator as well.

And that all depends if the police knew Blake had a warrant or not. Either way, shooting him 7 times was the absolute wrong answer.

Still, warrant or no, declining to give a statement does not warrant being paralyzed for life.

Like I said, I studied law, you have not. Leave this for the adults to discuss, and be quiet.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

You always fall back to an appeal to your alleged expertise or authority in a topic.

He resisted arrest and fought with the police. He very easily could have been going for a weapon. I'm never going to accept the word of an idiot that thinks the way you do.

There are so many examples in this thread alone of you consistently saying bullshit wrong things. From your weird definition of socialism, to your sheep like bleating of every media narrative.

The hits just don't stop coming. God you're a fuckup.

[Mobius_118]

God you're a dumbass.

This is pathetic. You're unwilling to even think about it, you're just glad another black man is shot by the police. He didn't have a weapon, he was within his legal rights to not give a statement on something that he intervened on, like a standard Good Samaritan. The video showed as such, and he was not resisting.

Look, bootlicker. You can be fascist all you want, but don't deny reality. I called out the shit trump would try, and you move the goalposts. It's tiresome, but I enjoy watching you squirm.

But you're entertaining for only so long. This isn't funny, and a young man is paralyzed for acting within his rights. That is according to the laws I learned, the standards I learned, and the actual law in Wisconsin and Federal law.

Try to talk your way out all you want, you're flat out wrong. No debate, no second chance. You do not pass Go, you do not collect $200.

End of statement.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Kek. You talk like you're some arbiter of truth or morality but you support violent riots under the guise of "Peaceful protests". You support thugs over the people that put them down, you support an ideology that has slaughtered millions.

You have no moral standing. You have no historical standing, you sure as fuck have no ideological standing. You call me "Fascist" but you can barely even try to define what that is. Anyone who disagrees with you presumably. It makes sense that Spencer is ridin with Biden at least. All the racial identitarians are backing the same candidate.

Really makes ya think. Or it should. You won't spare it a second thought. I'm sure you'll read White Fragility soon enough like a good little boy. You're a joke.

[Mobius_118]

Aw, bitch. You just keep talking stupid.

I hope to see you fumble your way in court one day. Michigan dumbass ends up in prison because he thought he knew more than the Prosecutor.

You're just a cute distraction. Sit down, boy, you're not ready. Like I said.

End of statement. You best be running along now.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

That doesn't ever work. I don't break laws, I generally keep to myself and live my best life. Like most people should. Hell the only reason I'm politically active in the first place is because of shrieking cultists like you that genuinely want to turn the country into some kind of intersectional hellhole in the pursuit of dogshit utopian ideals.

You really really like the internet tough guy routine though. Unsatisfied lovers? Overly harsh father? It's going to be something I just don't know what. But every internet tough guy has some pathetic facet. I'd be fascinated to figure out what yours was, though at the same time I enjoy the mystery.

[Sinekein]

That doesn't ever work. I don't break laws, I generally keep to myself and live my best life.

Commiserations.

Like most people should. Hell the only reason I'm politically active in the first place is because of shrieking cultists like you that genuinely want to turn the country into some kind of intersectional hellhole in the pursuit of dogshit utopian ideals.

Did you just call someone a cultist after using six videos from a single youtuber to apparently properly sum up your political views? Okidoki.

I would love to be reminded of the last time you said something negative about Trump - anything, really - to show that you are still able of critical thinking and not just regurgitating the statements of your last target of worship.

Now to talk with the grown-ups.

A definitive criteria of what qualifies as a violent act of a political cause would be rather useful here. Playing semantics can support that left-wing terrorism is a rampant and a dire threat, or, doesn't exist, and that right-wing death squads are executing people all over the place, or, they're pussies who don't do shit. Clearly, the extremes are not true, but it's real hard to nail down what's done for a _cause_ and what isn't. Is a murder during a political action, but isn't necessarily linked, partisan terrorism? What if the people siding with the political action excuse or downplay the murder, is that tacit acceptance? Fuck if I know.

It was not an act of terror, but it was obvious from the get-go that there would be riots again. The feeling that violent cops never get their comeuppance is incredibly strong and I can see where it comes from - I am pretty sure that regular people of all shapes, colors and sizes would be put behind bars for way less than "7 bullets in someone's back leaving him paralyzed".

Still, in that situation, both sides seem to think they profit from the chaos. Democrats are pushing the narrative that Trump's presidency has only brought chaos, and you get chaos on TV. Republicans want to prove that Biden's supporters are violent thugs and they get images of riots.

I get the feeling that Trump has more of an opportunity here: his base is more solid, he seems to be slightly trailing in the polls, and displaying a more sympathetic side towards a victim for once might help tip some undecided moderates (if there still are some). But honestly at that point I doubt he is able to convincingly play the empathy card, and that might be problematic for him. All presidents before him, from both sides, seemed to alternate between nice guy and tough guy, but he's been stuck for the longest time and he probably fears that some of his supporters will see him as pussying out or something.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

That doesn't ever work. I don't break laws, I generally keep to myself and live my best life.

Commiserations.

Like most people should. Hell the only reason I'm politically active in the first place is because of shrieking cultists like you that genuinely want to turn the country into some kind of intersectional hellhole in the pursuit of dogshit utopian ideals.

Did you just call someone a cultist after using six videos from a single youtuber to apparently properly sum up your political views? Okidoki.

I would love to be reminded of the last time you said something negative about Trump - anything, really - to show that you are still able of critical thinking and not just regurgitating the statements of your last target of worship.

Now to talk with the grown-ups.

First of all, fuck off with that you condescending arrogant prig.

Secondly Trump's done a lot of things I've found annoying. Bombing Syria a few years back. Hiring a Neocon like Bolton. Not pardoning Assange and Snowden being the biggest of them.

You're damn right I posted a bunch of links to TIm Pool because the guy used to fucking hate Trump and he's been FORCED into voting for him because of idiots like Mobius who cheer on riotous thugs destroying our cities.

See Mobius does the outrage and the faux moral grandstanding but you? You have that arrogant shitheel Frenchmen act down to a science.

So I'll say this one more time. Fuck you.

[Sinekein]

You know, I usually care little about acting condescending towards you specifically because of how morally bankrupt you always act, but since you can't help but throw a gratuitous jab towards French people every time for absolutely no reason, showing that deep down you are not just a cunt but a racist one, well, I would say that now I officially give zero fucks.

I could try to explain how using that one youtuber to try and confirm a general rule is one of the most obvious logical fallacies ever created and proves absolutely fuck all, but I fear it would be lost in the empty space between your ears.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

"Morally bankrupt" Uh huh fuck off.

Not the French in general. Arrogant pricks like you in particular. The people that caused there to be an arrogant french fuck stereotype to begin with.

I've posted links to a large number of different sources and approaches in the past and every single time you fucks have dismissed it without a word, or without a watch, or simply out of hand. You deserve the shit I throw your way because you're worse than Mobius. He's an idiot. Someone who has swallowed cult thinking wholesale.

Might be hard for you to remember but I wasn't the one who started talking shit in the first place in this fucking thread. Mobius did, I responded because he deserved it and I respond to you with vitriol because you deserve it.

Fuck you. The fact that Vol tolerates you and Mobius is a greater testament to his incredible strength of character than anything I've ever seen.

[Sinekein]

I like that the reason for your anger seems to be that while you're the condescending one when speaking to Mobius, you realize I don't give a shit about your opinion. And why should I? Your entire character can be summed up with "I don't care about anyone", so I don't exactly see why I should put any effort into trying to empathize with your warped moral compass. But if I can out-condescend you, then so be it, it's quite entertaining in fact.

Your "number of different sources" are just various opinion pieces from guys you agree with. As a rule I don't care for opinion pieces. I read the news reports and form my own, if I have doubts I try different sources, but I don't wait until someone chews it and spits an oversimplification I am finally able to process.

The fact that Vol tolerates me is, I assume, down to the fact that he is probably the most civil person I disagree with on a regular basis. He also acts and writes like someone who wants to talk, not someone who wants to shove the ideas of some random youtuber in everyone's faces as if it was the new gospel. So I can absolutely say I take pleasure in exchanging ideas with him, which is something that can never be said about you.

Finally, I think that it is something of a compliment for a stereotype of an arrogant French fuck to be recognized by a stereotype of a trashy American basement lurker.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

"Trashy American Basement Lurker". That's rich.

I didn't start the shit with Mobius. I hit back when he started acting like a dick to everyone who disagreed with him and you've been an arrogant prick to a lot more than just me. You don't give a shit about that though. Never have. Lot of the "Opinion" pieces I've posted over the years have had the primary sources linked in the descriptions which I've also gone over but again that doesn't matter to you.

Fuck off cunt and have a great week.

[Mobius_118]

Goddamn, GAC, you got sweaty. And you're still very, very wrong about the whole situation.

You should keep quiet for everyone else's sake. You know, do something for this community that benefits everyone.

[Mazder]

"Trashy American Basement Lurker". That's rich.

I didn't start the shit with Mobius. I hit back when he started acting like a dick to everyone who disagreed with him and you've been an arrogant prick to a lot more than just me. You don't give a shit about that though. Never have.

Trouble is we can reconcile and agree to disagree.
Mobius has been a cunt to me many, many times. I have been a cunt to him.
The main difference is I can forgive.

You seem to be taking a lot of it personally. You appear to get just as agitated as you claim Mobius is and then claim it in the derogatory for him, but for yourself it's just "passion" or whatever bullshit label you wish to place upon yourself to justify you being the "good guy".
Newsflash, none of us here are "good people".

And even if you did not start it you can certainly end it.
The same caterwauling that occurs from a Theo/Mob fight is the same as a GAC/Mob fight. It's basically the "don't feed the trolls" principle. If you're THAT annoyed by it then just shut up. Don't respond. Don't goad and don't feed.
And if you're doing it on "our behalf" or some principled bullshit reason then kindly don't presume what's good or bad for us. We'll make our own decisions. The only thing that comes from watching you two go at it is a smidgen of viewing pleasure and then a whole lot of annoyance. At the end of the day your points both get lost and, personally, I listen to neither of you. You're both as bad as each other.

Lot of the "Opinion" pieces I've posted over the years have had the primary sources linked in the descriptions which I've also gone over but again that doesn't matter to you.

I mean, if you'd started with the sources rather than the opinions of the youtube talking heads then maybe people would think you actually stood or thought those things yourself, rather than reposting stuff. Even if you agree with them we'd at least start to see more YOUR opinion rather than a repost to get a reaction for laughs.
We can get that from Twitter, what do we need you for in that regard?

[Mobius_118]

Difference is I give my opinion backed by facts.

I can forgive Mazder because he's not a US Citizen, he's across the pond.

Sine I can forgive because he's not a US Citizen, he's also across the pond.

They both have a better grasp of right and wrong, legal vs illegal about the US than GAC.

I have shared the exact laws trump has violated that would put any other president on the fast track towards impeachment and imprisonment.

This isn't hard.

[Mazder]

I can forgive Mazder because he's not a US Citizen, he's across the pond.
They both have a better grasp of right and wrong, legal vs illegal about the US than GAC.

Yet.
Not a citizen, yet.
I still might be one day in the future

I'd also not use me as a litmus test for right and wrong.
I mean, I did vote FOR BREXIT in the beginning after all, lol!

[Mobius_118]

Yet.
Not a citizen, yet.
I still might be one day in the future

I'd also not use me as a litmus test for right and wrong.
I mean, I did vote FOR BREXIT in the beginning after all, lol!

As you said, we're not good people. You at least regret voting for Brexit...Right?

[Mazder]

As you said, we're not good people. You at least regret voting for Brexit...Right?

Yep, the way we went about it was all wrong and the things I hoped we could change are being ignored for potential long term gains that ignore literal short term ones.

But upon our leaving the smaller nations actually get more leverage and it broke up the "big 4" bloc in the EU so, kinda half what I wanted to happen has happened (basically no "big country and small country" if it's an equal union it should at least ACT equal.
27 countries, 27 votes, not each representative from the country getting a vote that makes up a massive chunk, especially as bigger/richer nations get more representatives.
If there are different political spheres in the EU then each nation has to handle that locally.

e.g for the UK, the Brexit Party was our EU reps but the Torries were in power. That should not happen. The ruling/in-charge party of a nation should field reps for the EU. If the nation doesn't like it then they should change their local nation to show their feelings. If they're in the majority they'll win, if not they'll just have to wait until the next elections. At least that is/was my opinion.
But now we're out of it so I have no opinion. Not my pig, not my farm.

[TLock]

Yep, the way we went about it was all wrong and the things I hoped we could change are being ignored for potential long term gains that ignore literal short term ones.

But upon our leaving the smaller nations actually get more leverage and it broke up the "big 4" bloc in the EU so, kinda half what I wanted to happen has happened (basically no "big country and small country" if it's an equal union it should at least ACT equal.
27 countries, 27 votes, not each representative from the country getting a vote that makes up a massive chunk, especially as bigger/richer nations get more representatives.
If there are different political spheres in the EU then each nation has to handle that locally.

e.g for the UK, the Brexit Party was our EU reps but the Torries were in power. That should not happen. The ruling/in-charge party of a nation should field reps for the EU. If the nation doesn't like it then they should change their local nation to show their feelings. If they're in the majority they'll win, if not they'll just have to wait until the next elections. At least that is/was my opinion.
But now we're out of it so I have no opinion. Not my pig, not my farm.

I just want to say with regards to the EU stuff, the Brexit party was elected to join the EU parliament because the UK citizens voted for them in the EU parliamentary elections. Some Tory MP were voted in, same for Labour and greens. Its just that in the case of the UK, the Brexit party voters mobilized more than any other party voter. Normally EU parliamentary elections have a low turnout because not many people see them as important or even know they have to vote for them.

With regards to the votes, each member country can exercise their veto on any policy that comes from the parliament. When that happens it goes back to renegotiation, that is why the EU budget meetings tend to last for days as each click tries to push their agenda. It is a miss conception that EU laws are passed without the approval of each countries head of government, they are all agreed by them and then passed to their local parliaments for approval. Even then, most of the EU laws are the guidelines to follow. Not all countries follow it to the letter of the law, but they do follow the minimum at the very least.

I will be the first to admit, I am not an expert on how the EU runs and I found the below useful in explaining how things work in the EU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4Uu5eyN6VU

My view is that Brexit was the biggest mistake in current British history, in my view none of the reasons they gave were even remotely true. The fact that there has been no accountability for those lies is shocking in my view

[Vol]

Thinking about religion always fucks with the head. There never seems to an answer that isn't direct divine intervention, or crossing my fingers and hoping I don't slip into oblivion when I die. Based on causality, there has to be a creator force, that much is as true, but beyond that? I have no idea. I have some big hopes, it'd be real lovely if there is an afterlife of bliss and peace for having the right faith, and I'd heartily throw myself into that.

But it appears human are innately religious. At all levels of civilization. Very primitive, it's just trying to understand their environments and sense of self. Sun makes heat and light and nurtures crops, worship it. Vague, abstract concepts that over time become personified or understood. Parents are vital to survival, as their parents were, so worship your ancestors. Get more complicated society, and now you have the Aztecs and their barbaric, evil faith, and you're flaying people and immolating children to make _sure_ the sun comes up again. I would imagine every human population had some sort of faith system at all times in their history. Today, we have the materialists in the west, who seem to profess a lack of faith in Christianity specifically, but everything outside their model of reality in practice. Which is again faith, as no one can actually verify everything they're taught is empirical truth, much less test it all. And from there, all the extrapolated beliefs. _Is_ the sun one star among trillions in a cosmos beyond our ability to understand the scale? Probably. Are quasars giant, ancient stars at the edges of reality? Maybe, when would you ever know for sure though? We observe gravity as part of our existence, even if we don't have a word for it. We know how it works, at least on our level of existence, and we can predict the rules that govern it well enough to do very impressive feats, like launching a rocket off our planet with very good accuracy to intercept bodies in space. But our models at the extremes are all conjecture. Mathematical formulas worked over and over. But we can't really know for sure what's going on with a black hole, or at the smallest level of matter. Or even what the smallest level of matter is. _Why_ does density of mass create gravitational fields? Can't know that, ever. We can create excellent predictive models on how it appears to work, but "why" is outside the purview.

So in that sense, the atheist who claims every is material, and can be understood with a sufficiently advanced understanding and model, is putting faith in research he will never be part of, nor understand, nor test, nor experience. He will live in the same reality as all of us, with the same basic human body, the same biological compulsions to ascribe agency to processes, but he calls his faith "fact." Which is fair, in that a great deal of what we hold to be true can be demonstrated, repeatedly, by everyone, everywhere. As opposed to the countless charlatans who claimed supernatural powers of prophecy or magic or communion with the dead or healing or anything you and I cannot do. The closet we can get to empirical study of the afterlife, ethically, are near death experiences and phenomenon of the like. There does not exist a working understanding of our consciousness, only theory of very complicated interactions piling on top of each other that somehow gave us sapience. Free will, if you aren't a total materialist, as well. No one knows how that's supposed to work, like we know how gravity is supposed to work, or the sun rising tomorrow, only the basics of the structure. Get a lesion here, you forget how to talk, get this part injured, you can't breath, cut the lobes in half, solve this illness. But not how the wiring all comes together to create the uniqueness that is the human mind, or what the mind specifically is.

We can be confident that the Aztecs were wrong, as they're not torturing and murdering people anymore, and the sun comes up. 2012 came and went, so the Mayans were wrong. We can visit Mount Olympus and not find Zeus. The voodoo faith was invented on scraps of this and that in the last few centuries. Mormonism is a heresy of Christianity invented by a guy who claims to have read divine golden tablets out of a hat, and that Jesus was in America. Scientology is absolute nonsense made up by a science-fiction writer. People believe or believed all of these things were the one truth, as much as atheists believe the cumulative works of people they never and never verified are the functional model of reality and that oblivion awaits.

It gets more complicated as society advanced, people became smarter, their understanding of their realities became more abstract. You look at the early Jews, a tiny population, in one part of the world, who claimed God spoke specifically to them and performed miracles for them and demanded the tips of their penises as proof of their covenant, and so much more. It seems impossible and bizarre to us, but this time, there is no disproving the claim. It is an abstract, untouchable God. Some people claim this monotheism is derived from a previous pantheon, from which all the other gods and their worshipers were wiped out by a conquering force, but the proto-YHWH worshippers, who in turn claimed their god was the one true god now. Is that true? No idea. No way to know. We do know the claims of massive, indisputable divine intervention appears to have ceased in the last few millennia. But then, what are we to question the discretion of a theoretical higher being? Ants in an ant farm have a better ability to understand us than we do a creator. _Did_ Moses get the divine laws to live by on stone tablets from a burning bush? Were plagues visited on Egypt? Did the Red Sea part? Was there a great flood? Did Sodom and Gomorrah get obliterated? We can never know, in the same we can never know what a singularity tastes like, or walk on a quasar, or personally verify string theory. Some future person might, but we are so incredibly far removed from these functions of reality, that it's all faith. We're great apes on one planet, with 5 senses, harsh biological constraints, and extremely brief periods of existence. But the Jews, and then Christians, and I assume other major modern faiths, seem _more likely_ than primitive ones. According to personal God systems, He just didn't give instructions until a certain point, and then people acted as we factually do, and didn't listen.

You cannot disprove Jesus' claims, or Abraham, or Moses, or Buddha, or Muhammad, because you cannot face them, you cannot observe them. Though at least with Jesus there's a stronger case he existed and did what he's said to have done than most anything else in history. It contradicts our scientific models to walk on water, transfigure, heal the sick, raise the dead, raise oneself from the dead, so on and so forth, but so what? You can point to our working models, but they're not complete, or absolute, and they can never be. And that's just the materialist side. The spiritual side is by nature unknowable until you're dead, as well as the ethics and promises and such.

We have people brought back from death, no heart beat, no brain activity, across centuries, faiths, and countries, who've claimed to experience very similar afterlives. Some sort of tunnel (Though culturally specific, the west would say tunnel, others would say a well, a cave, a tail pipe), a sense of peace and love, beautiful light, looking back at their shed body, and sometimes deceased loved ones, or even God. Some studies have found these people returning to life with knowledge they should not have. Such as 'seeing' a loved one who was not thought to be deceased, but had in fact died recently, before anyone was informed. Or seeing a doctor preparing for the resuscitation process from a vantage they could not possibly have had in their body. Is that true? No ethical way to test it, obviously. Someone might whisper things to them, memories can be muddled, and it's not 100% of revived persons. The process of doing so, and the kind of person likely to die, lends itself to poor memory retention. Some studies have placed hidden objects in spots in the room no one can see, and then question the returned person on it. No one has succeeded, though if their souls were ascending, why would they look on top of a shelf for a weird picture instead of their mortal shell, or the people in the room, or a doctor in the prep area getting ready for surgery? You would think at the least this would warrant larger study, with people likely to die and be revived, yet here we are.

But then _that_ raises the questions of why would it be a _universal_ experience. There is supposed to be writings from all times and places and peoples that describe this general process of after-death experience. But, it then has applied to confirmed atheists, Christians, Greek polytheists, good people, bad people, suicide cases, drug overdoses, and so on. No discrimination. You might claim than that a benevolent, personal creator knows they're going back, so a glimpse of a heaven is what they need, and indeed these people are claimed to have had rather stark personality changes as a result. Becoming more spiritual, less concerned with materialism, the changes you would expect if you personally experienced a divine moment. Not a firestorm, or a clear and obvious miracle, but being dead for several minutes, then revived. Does a dying brain concern itself with creating an illusion of divine bliss? How would that possibly work, especially after brain death? Is it post-revival memories being invented? Possible, the brain is malleable when subjected to extremes. But there's no reason a faithless person, or someone who doesn't believe in that particular version of the afterlife, or even never heard of it, to think that just happened to them. And faiths are supposed to be mutually exclusive. These are not repeatable, semi-consistent, and completely unethical to test experiences into post-mortality experience. Do you believe it's the work of a dying mind or something more? Is the mind separate from the body, ultimately? Were all the prophecies and feats and divine experiences that were said to occur in the distant past real then, a bit of the soul slipping through the veil of the material? Are we creatures specifically created for a unknowable purpose who need to adhere to a specific code of conduct or worship? Are we cosmic dust that as a consequence of the Big Bang are going through the motions of chemical reactions that are destined to occur exactly as they have and will, no matter how unique and special life and intelligence appears to be? Who knows? I'd really like to though.

Frustrating, isn't it?

[Augustei]

I approach religion through a Jungian Social Lens, basically that much of what is said in religious texts isn't necessarily meant to be taken literally but a lot of the time is metaphor as a means of conveying a message for personal improvement and/or addressing humans instinctual needs. I'd advise anyone to read some of Jungs works on the matter because they're particularly interesting even if you don't buy into them, and cover some of the questions you've just raised: For example universal experiences, or what Jung calls the Collective Unconscious and how a lot of commonality of experiences re: religion across numerous people and societies can be attributed to a part of the subconscious that is genetically inherited

[Sinekein]

So in that sense, the atheist who claims every is material, and can be understood with a sufficiently advanced understanding and model, is putting faith in research he will never be part of, nor understand, nor test, nor experience. He will live in the same reality as all of us, with the same basic human body, the same biological compulsions to ascribe agency to processes, but he calls his faith "fact." Which is fair, in that a great deal of what we hold to be true can be demonstrated, repeatedly, by everyone, everywhere. As opposed to the countless charlatans who claimed supernatural powers of prophecy or magic or communion with the dead or healing or anything you and I cannot do. The closet we can get to empirical study of the afterlife, ethically, are near death experiences and phenomenon of the like. There does not exist a working understanding of our consciousness, only theory of very complicated interactions piling on top of each other that somehow gave us sapience. Free will, if you aren't a total materialist, as well. No one knows how that's supposed to work, like we know how gravity is supposed to work, or the sun rising tomorrow, only the basics of the structure. Get a lesion here, you forget how to talk, get this part injured, you can't breath, cut the lobes in half, solve this illness. But not how the wiring all comes together to create the uniqueness that is the human mind, or what the mind specifically is.

I am not sure all atheists put faith in "fact" in the sense it has been given today, ie "science". There are many atheists who don't believe in or care about scientific facts that have been all but established. I think it has more to do with more and more countries and societies giving people a choice when it comes to what they believe in, so they can either cherry-pick - and become the kind of religious person who does not take whatever is written in the book literally - or go for the thought experience that suits their life the most. I think that scientology has a strong "you are the chosen one" vibe, more so than other cults, so if you are sensible to being part of an invisible elite, you are more likely to be seduced I guess (dirty tricks and manipulations aside).

It gets more complicated as society advanced, people became smarter, their understanding of their realities became more abstract. You look at the early Jews, a tiny population, in one part of the world, who claimed God spoke specifically to them and performed miracles for them and demanded the tips of their penises as proof of their covenant, and so much more. It seems impossible and bizarre to us, but this time, there is no disproving the claim. It is an abstract, untouchable God. Some people claim this monotheism is derived from a previous pantheon, from which all the other gods and their worshipers were wiped out by a conquering force, but the proto-YHWH worshippers, who in turn claimed their god was the one true god now. Is that true? No idea. No way to know. We do know the claims of massive, indisputable divine intervention appears to have ceased in the last few millennia. But then, what are we to question the discretion of a theoretical higher being? Ants in an ant farm have a better ability to understand us than we do a creator. _Did_ Moses get the divine laws to live by on stone tablets from a burning bush? Were plagues visited on Egypt? Did the Red Sea part? Was there a great flood? Did Sodom and Gomorrah get obliterated? We can never know, in the same we can never know what a singularity tastes like, or walk on a quasar, or personally verify string theory. Some future person might, but we are so incredibly far removed from these functions of reality, that it's all faith. We're great apes on one planet, with 5 senses, harsh biological constraints, and extremely brief periods of existence. But the Jews, and then Christians, and I assume other major modern faiths, seem _more likely_ than primitive ones. According to personal God systems, He just didn't give instructions until a certain point, and then people acted as we factually do, and didn't listen.

You cannot disprove Jesus' claims, or Abraham, or Moses, or Buddha, or Muhammad, because you cannot face them, you cannot observe them. Though at least with Jesus there's a stronger case he existed and did what he's said to have done than most anything else in history. It contradicts our scientific models to walk on water, transfigure, heal the sick, raise the dead, raise oneself from the dead, so on and so forth, but so what? You can point to our working models, but they're not complete, or absolute, and they can never be. And that's just the materialist side. The spiritual side is by nature unknowable until you're dead, as well as the ethics and promises and such.

I do not think the ability to prove or disprove is that important in the success of religions or the reason they remained to this day. Hinduism is a polytheism that is still going strong despite featuring people with six arms or elephant heads. No one has ever found the Kraken, or Yggdrasil, or Odin's palace, yet Nordic mythology is all but gone now. And you had monotheisms or polytheisms that looked very "logical" in comparison that disappeared over time too.

If you cannot "prove" religions, looking at history it is often rather easy to understand why they succeeded or disappeared. More often than not, they don't appear in a vacuum, but to accompany an evolution in a society. It might look silly for Mayans to worship the sun so much, but they were the civilization that started growing maize, a crop that needs more sun than others. Presumably, years with shitty weather and little sun might have caused starvations that could not truly be explained at that time, hence a need for a sun figure. In Europe, there was no such need because the climate is more temperate, and it was harder to tie a particular weather to good or bad crops.

Muslims and Jews cannot eat pork, but Islam aired in very hot and dry countries in which pigs in general are not native. Since they are animals that tend to be rather fragile of health (unlike cows for example, which can withstand basically the apocalypse) and tend to carry diseases or parasites that can easily be passed on humans, that particular meat being forbidden can be explained as a health concern first, even if it is written in the holy book without giving a clue (or with a mythological one, I don't know about either).

You can also look at society to explain why some religions emerged, and why some didn't. Christianity has seen a ton of "offbrand religions" over the years (Mormons are one of the most recent), but only a handful survived. The two largest, Orthodoxy and Protestantism, can rather easily be explained by looking at history: Orthodoxy was initially born because despite the Roman Empire unifying the Mediterranean Sea, Greek culture was still extremely influent, and there always was a rivalry between "Roman culture" and "Greek culture". Little by little, the christian faith started to diverge between those two areas, until it reached a point where it could not be reconciled - but since both faiths were of roughly equal strength, instead of a crusade or a genocide (see: the Cathars in Southern France, which is an alternative christianism that did not survive), there was a schism.

Same with protestantism. It appeared in the Renaissance, at a time where the lot of many commoners started to improve, which made the privileges of the clergy harder and harder to swallow. In France at least the protestant faith was hugely popular among merchants and crafters as it proposed a less layered society than the catholic faith - but farmers and peasants mostly remained catholic. It could have been another cult that would eventually be crushed, except it appeared at the same time as printing, which helped it spread extremely quickly all over Europe. Both Luther and Calvin, who were crucial in founding protestantism, were living in or near (modern) Germany which is where printing was invented by Gutemberg.

Bottom line: I don't think deniability matters. It has been "scientifically proven" that the Bible's timeline does not work, and it was not enough to cancel all christianism. Religions are there to fill for the things science cannot explain, and even if it is progressing real fast these days, it still cannot understand everything. But I am confident we will get closer and closer, even if "the absolute truth" can not be reached.

[TTTX]

2012 came and went, so the Mayans were wrong.

Not necessarily, the Spanish burned a lot of their documents and there was found a calendar that was longer then the 2012 one.
So you know it was just people basing stuff on incomplete info.

[TheodoricFriede]

Oooooooooooooooooooohhh boy...

[Sinekein]

Yeah I think this year was a bit boring, it really needed some more events like that.

[SciFlyBoy]

Oooooooooooooooooooohhh boy...

Yup!