[Wutang]

(06-26-2014 08:33 PM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  

The fallout from the Gary Oldman interview reminded me of that. These days, freedom of speech, the support of others' freedom of speech is bigotry. An expression of being able to see things from the opposing point of view is bigotry. Understanding that people are fallible or say silly things sometimes is bigotry. Liberals have become a parody of the worst things they've always accused those on the right of being or doing.

I've noticed that in the past year or so that progressive types have really picked up on the theme of how yes you are free to express whatever opinions you wish but you are not free from any sort of consequence of backlash since after all other people also possess this same freedom and can make use of it as well, this is expressed in a widely posted comic strip from xkcd, beloved of SWPL types everywhere:



This idea certainly isn't new but what is new is the total reversal of the roles: before it was them that usually made use of the "freedom of speech" defense when expressing their viewpoints. Now it's the opposite: now they are the ones that are on the other side and are using their new role to shut down opposing viewpoints. This just shows their despite their constant complaints about being marginalized and attempts to depict themselves as perpetual underdogs THEY are now the ones in control of the pulpits and the institutions that shape public opinion.

Now I actually have no bone to pick with the idea that yes, you should be willing to own up to the words that come out of your mouth - I think that as men we should strive to realize that ideal. What is totally hypocritical and what I find maddening is the total hypocracy of the left when it comes to applying this standard to their own causes. The former Firefox CEO must be shamed for donating his own money to anti-gay marriage groups, which is something he is doing in his personal life and not something he is trying to drag Mozilla into but yet we aren't suppose to "slut shame", "fat shame", or otherwise apply any sort of critical judgement to the actions and words of people espousing progressive viewpoints? It's a way to stack the deck completely in their favor before the game even starts.

[soup]

(06-28-2014 09:16 AM)kosko Wrote:  

(06-27-2014 04:06 PM)soup Wrote:  

(06-27-2014 03:59 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

(06-27-2014 02:49 PM)soup Wrote:  

Secular progressivism isn't a religion. There's no diety.

scorpion Wrote:

The problem with a secular religion like progressivism is that it unavoidably makes a god of man himself. They worship "equality" because equality is just another way of saying "all mankind". So progressivism is literally the worship of man.

There's no worshipping going on. I think you are getting your semantics mixed up. Worshipping is for dieties.

Both of you are a bit off.

It's the worship of "ego", "self", basically your own narcissist tendencies.

Old religions if you believe in then, or not. Basically forced humans to worship "the larger picture" that mark folks from being self-destructive and full of themselves. Instead of he inner false ego you put faith in you in the context of something larger.

Promoting "ego", promotes decadence, which promotes decay.

Actually the left is about recognizing things beyond your ego.. like other people, and trying to help them.

Also, the idea of ego and all that came from Freud who "regarded the monotheistic God as an illusion based upon the infantile emotional need for a powerful, supernatural pater familias. He maintained that religion – once necessary to restrain man's violent nature in the early stages of civilization – in modern times, can be set aside in favor of reason and science.[137] "Obsessive Actions and Religious Practices" (1907) notes the likeness between faith (religious belief) and neurotic obsession.[138] Totem and Taboo (1913) proposes that society and religion begin with the patricide and eating of the powerful paternal figure, who then becomes a revered collective memory."

[KorbenDallas]

Maybe that's what you think the left is about Soup, but that isn't what happens in real life.


In real life, conservatives donate far more money to charity, volunteer more in their communities, and do this with a lower average income than liberals.

Liberals are all about stealing from others to give to their cronies, and then give scraps to the dupes who support them. Then they take credit for giving out the scraps.

[Dusty]

(06-28-2014 01:09 PM)Wutang Wrote:  

(06-27-2014 09:14 PM)soup Wrote:  

And the gay version of ROK - Return of Queens.

Trending threads at the forum:
How to use baking soda for you asshole
How to get laid on grinder like a boss
The what WOULDN'T you hit it thread
Scrotum lounge
Fabulous lounge

10 Ways Eastern European Gay Men Are Superior to American Gay Men

"I know this girl who's really good looking (no hetero)..."

[soup]

Korben, I think we might be living in different worlds because the kind that I know go out and try to help people directly.

I get the sense that there are a lot of differences with how I see the world and what a lot of the guys on the forum see because I'm in NYC, and when guys complain about hipsters and liberals.. I think you might be talking about the ones in middle America or whatever because in NYC it's not much like what y'all are describing.

[AnonymousBosch]

(06-28-2014 02:31 PM)Wutang Wrote:  

It's interesting to note comics designed to moralise rather than entertain have just as shitty shittier artwork as than ever.



This just reinforces my opinion about them being a new kind of Christian.

[Farmageddon]

AnonymousBosch,

When I was in elementary school, my parents sent my sister and I to a christian academy because we lived in a really ghetto part of town. I don't blame them, I probably would have done the same thing. The teachers used to have these little placards they would show us when they were telling Bible stories. The one I remember most was split in two directly along the middle horizontally. On the top, there were obviously people in Heaven having a good time, laughing, celebrating, eating food and drinking. On the bottom, there was a man in what seemed to be a furnace, surrounded by sharp rocks, fire, and lava. He was reaching upwards in agony and had a desperate look on his face.

The teacher told us that the people on top had accepted Jesus and their savior and were living in eternal peace and happiness. The man on the bottom was a family member of one of the people in Heaven who had rejected Jesus and that the only thing he asked for was just one drop of water to quench his thirst but that he would never even be able to have that and he would suffer in thirst and fire for all eternity.

I was in second grade.

[AnonymousBosch]

(06-28-2014 05:36 PM)Farmageddon Wrote:  

AnonymousBosch,

When I was in elementary school, my parents sent my sister and I to a christian academy because we lived in a really ghetto part of town. I don't blame them, I probably would have done the same thing. The teachers used to have these little placards they would show us when they were telling Bible stories. The one I remember most was split in two directly along the middle horizontally. On the top, there were obviously people in Heaven having a good time, laughing, celebrating, eating food and drinking. On the bottom, there was a man in what seemed to be a furnace, surrounded by sharp rocks, fire, and lava. He was reaching upwards in agony and had a desperate look on his face.

The teacher told us that the people on top had accepted Jesus and their savior and were living in eternal peace and happiness. The man on the bottom was a family member of one of the people in Heaven who had rejected Jesus and that the only thing he asked for was just one drop of water to quench his thirst but that he would never even be able to have that and he would suffer in thirst and fire for all eternity.

I was in second grade.

I asked one of the nuns in the 5th grade after hearing one of these lectures on heaven and hell and being horrified that God was so compassionless: "So, God's love is conditional and eternally-unforgiving, but I'm supposed to love everyone unconditionally and forgive everyone who wrongs me?"

< sent to the principal, caned

It's this kind of crap that pushed me away from religion to the political left as a young man, and it's recognising the exact same moralising crap wearing the mask of progressivism that has pushed me away from the left. I stand alone, relying on myself, and am glad of that.

I remember reading a tweet from a progressive type over the recent Donald Sterling beat up, that basically said "Everyone should shun him. No-one should sell him anything or do business with him. Let him starve."

i.e. "just one drop of water to quench his thirst but that he would never even be able to have that and he would suffer in thirst and fire for all eternity."

We're simply living through a religious civil war.

[All or Nothing]

(06-27-2014 01:22 PM)soup Wrote:  

You want people to back to worshipping a zombie character who might not have existed?

I think people have to stop displacing responsibility. Religious people, progressives.. the whole lot.

People want a savior to worship. They also want a bad guy to hate. It's childish thinking. A fantasy black and white world where these characters do the living.

It is pretty clear that you think Christianity is a silly form of religion that no one should believe in.

Let it be noted that Christianity is based on Judaism, so the two share some similarities.

So I have to ask do you also believe that Judaism is a silly form of religion that no one should believe in?

I am asking for the sake of consistency.

[soup]

(06-28-2014 06:09 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  

(06-27-2014 01:22 PM)soup Wrote:  

You want people to back to worshipping a zombie character who might not have existed?

I think people have to stop displacing responsibility. Religious people, progressives.. the whole lot.

People want a savior to worship. They also want a bad guy to hate. It's childish thinking. A fantasy black and white world where these characters do the living.

It is pretty clear that you think Christianity is a silly form of religion that no one should believe in.

Let it be noted that Christianity is based on Judaism, so the two share some similarities.

So I have to ask do you also believe that Judaism is a silly form of religion that no one should believe in?

I am asking for the sake of consistency.

I think silly is a poor choice to describe such powerful forces like Christianity or Judaism, but to answer your question, I think that any kind of greatly promoted, hugely influential, unsubstantiated beliefs should be questioned and not just accepted without evidence.

Why believe in god? Why believe in Jesus? Why not Odin, or Superman?

What would you think if I told you I was god?

[All or Nothing]

(06-28-2014 06:23 PM)soup Wrote:  

I think silly is a poor choice to describe such powerful forces like Christianity or Judaism, but to answer your question, I think that any kind of greatly promoted, hugely influential, unsubstantiated beliefs should be questioned and not just accepted without evidence.

I can agree with this line of thinking. I myself am agnostic, which is another way of saying "indifferent" to whether or not God truly exists. Whether or not this universe exists by intelligent design cannot be verified either way.

On the other hand, I personally support Christianity as an organized religion. I am not a history buff, but from what I know about history, it can be observed that Christianity has operated as the fabric of European society for hundreds of years reducing the overall level of chaos by imbuing people with a set of social rules and values that promoted high functioning communities.

[Slick Shimmer]

The elites of the Abrahamic religions have a separate set of beliefs.
Look into those and you might see why people have such programming.

[Sawyer]

Kids were once taught they would go to hell in the afterlife if they behaved immorally.

Now they are taught the world will be scorched in this life if their parents drive an SUV. But it's all science now of course.

If Christian teachings damaged kids before, I hate to think of what global warming teaching is doing to kids now.

At least under Christianity you had a chance.

[LeBeau]

(06-28-2014 06:46 PM)Slick Shimmer Wrote:  

The elites of the Abrahamic religions have a separate set of beliefs.
Look into those and you might see why people have such programming.

^ I'm not sure what you're getting it, maybe explain for the rest of us?

[soup]

(06-28-2014 06:39 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  

(06-28-2014 06:23 PM)soup Wrote:  

I think silly is a poor choice to describe such powerful forces like Christianity or Judaism, but to answer your question, I think that any kind of greatly promoted, hugely influential, unsubstantiated beliefs should be questioned and not just accepted without evidence.

I can agree with this line of thinking. I myself am agnostic, which is another way of saying "indifferent" to whether or not God truly exists. Whether or not this universe exists by intelligent design cannot be verified either way.

On the other hand, I personally support Christianity as an organized religion. I am not a history buff, but from what I know about history, it can be observed that Christianity has operated as the fabric of European society for hundreds of years reducing the overall level of chaos by imbuing people with a set of social rules and values that promoted high functioning communities.

I don't care about religion or not, I care about good.

Goodness is more important than all the arguments and beliefs.

I don't believe in something that is supposed to exist outside of reality, because that doesn't make sense.

As to whether or not we, the planet, the solar system, or the universe was designed is an interesting question. There is no evidence for it currently, but who knows what the future will show.

That said, we don't need a complex thing to make something less complex.

Furthermore, the idea of some overlord watching everything I do and controlling everything I think is something I would fight against.

All you guys complaining about "big government liberal" stuff are hypocrites if you accept big government via the supernatural.

And seriously, if I had to chose a religion that would make me feel most alive and engaged with life.. I'd probably be a buddhist during then day when I need to practice music, and a pagan-norse god worshipper at night when I need to go slay pussy.

I think those two religions can balance each other out well.

[Slick Shimmer]

(06-28-2014 07:12 PM)LeBeau Wrote:  

(06-28-2014 06:46 PM)Slick Shimmer Wrote:  

The elites of the Abrahamic religions have a separate set of beliefs.
Look into those and you might see why people have such programming.

^ I'm not sure what you're getting it, maybe explain for the rest of us?

Essentially religious impulse is a yearning to expand the mind, the consciousness, "the soul" as it were. A lot of people are shepherded, and lead to believe surface level concepts, when at this point in history, we're dealing with allegories of allegories.

This book is an interesting read, for example.

[AnonymousBosch]

(06-28-2014 07:31 PM)soup Wrote:  

And seriously, if I had to chose a religion that would make me feel most alive and engaged with life.. I'd probably be a buddhist during then day when I need to practice music, and a pagan-norse god worshipper at night when I need to go slay pussy.

[kosko]

(06-28-2014 03:02 PM)soup Wrote:  

(06-28-2014 09:16 AM)kosko Wrote:  

(06-27-2014 04:06 PM)soup Wrote:  

(06-27-2014 03:59 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

(06-27-2014 02:49 PM)soup Wrote:  

Secular progressivism isn't a religion. There's no diety.

scorpion Wrote:

The problem with a secular religion like progressivism is that it unavoidably makes a god of man himself. They worship "equality" because equality is just another way of saying "all mankind". So progressivism is literally the worship of man.

There's no worshipping going on. I think you are getting your semantics mixed up. Worshipping is for dieties.

Both of you are a bit off.

It's the worship of "ego", "self", basically your own narcissist tendencies.

Old religions if you believe in then, or not. Basically forced humans to worship "the larger picture" that mark folks from being self-destructive and full of themselves. Instead of he inner false ego you put faith in you in the context of something larger.

Promoting "ego", promotes decadence, which promotes decay.

Actually the left is about recognizing things beyond your ego.. like other people, and trying to help them.

It isn't though. It's all a smoke screen. The left acts as helpers but it's all self-seeing as elitism. They feel try are superior and try to cast downwards onto others. Democrats don't give to charity, they don't make donations, they don't help out. Every hipster girl does some expensive trip to Kenya to build a mud-but but it's all self-serving to her own ego. More conservative people always give more to charities a a donate time. All this talk ably helping others and "equality" when America has never been more divided an unequal...

They shouts loud so you pay attention to them, the message isn't important, only that they are acknowledged in delivering that message.

When your truly selfless then sacrificing for others isn't a big deal, when it a big deal it's all an act.

[AnonymousBosch]

(06-28-2014 10:03 PM)kosko Wrote:  

When your truly selfless then sacrificing for others isn't a big deal, when it a big deal it's all an act.

Hence Angelina Jolie being asked to a Rape Summit because her public persona is that she caaaaares.

Meanwhile, a Palliative Care Worker somewhere is quietly cleaning up the final voiding of the recently-deceased to offer the dead some dignity, and to spare the family the embarrassment of doing so, to no audience whatsoever.

[Farmageddon]

Quote:

We're simply living through a religious civil war.

I could not agree more. I've often said in discussions about religion that the reason we are seeing such a rise in fundamentalism and extremism is because we are beginning to see the first stages of the death pangs of religion. I think this is due to the wide spread dissemination of information. Information is the enemy of faith and religious thought.

...........

In reference to your elementary school story, I have one of my own.

Same school I mentioned about, second or third grade. My Mom had my sister and I watch the movie Ghandi with Ben Kingsley. She is not educated but is a very brilliant businesswoman and she always tried to culture my sister and I in any way she could. My Mom tried to explain how people from different countries sometimes had different religions, etc.

When I got to school, the fundamentalist christian school, I asked my teacher if Ghandi would go to Heaven if he was not a christian. She said something to the affect of, "Well, we don't know if he accepted Jesus before he died or not. But if he didn't, unfortunately, he would not go to Heaven."

I remember thinking that something was very wrong with this sentiment. I've always been naturally skeptical, but this was the first moment that I really thought, "this can not bet true". Ghandi was so fucking christian he was hindu. I still bought into the whole christian thing until early middle school when I actually read the bible, but after that, the jig was up. I've been an atheist/agnostic since about 6th or 7th grade.

[CaP7]

(06-26-2014 09:42 PM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  

Scorpion: I didn't see your post before because I opened the thread before you wrote your comment.

Much of it I agree with, but I'm on the fence about Islam. It is definitely a major problem that is not to be under-estimated, but I think things could go either way in Europe. I think we're seeing the first emergent strains of push back. There is Golden Dawn in Greece. During the riots in Stockholm, a group of Swedes organised themselves for defence. There were only fifty of them or something like that, but that was one little neighbourhood. There are far right parties springing up all over the place. None of these groups have by any means been really successful, and in some cases, they've been stamped on pretty hard by the treasonous governments and mass media. Yet the feeling is growing.

Islam's success will depend upon a slow burn. If things don't hit the fan within a generation or two, I think your prognosis will turn out correct for reasons of fertility and conversion. On the other hand, I think that there is a lot of tinder lying around, and there are a lot of ill feelings below the surface. Things could get out of hand. White Europeans -- especially the under and lower classes -- do have a capacity for violence that is just below the surface and can be very energetic. The really big advantage white Europeans have though is that they are simply smarter and better able to organise and make use of resources. Some of the non-English areas of England now are a complete pig sty. Those guys literally couldn't get laid in a brothel. If the state didn't actively help them, or if it became so ineffectual that it lost control, the Islamists in the West would get their arses handed to them.

Another thing too is that if a conflict were to break out in one European country, just as there would be support from the Muslim world, I think there'd actually be a lot of counter-jihadists who would travel from all over Europe to aid the natives. You'd see Poles, Austrians, Greeks, Norwegians, Brits, etc. converge on Belgium quick smart if things got out of hand there, for example. There'd also be a lot of funding from abroad, too. Plenty of European expats or their descendants would send money to the counter-jihad. There'd be tons of money (and maybe even personnel and expertise) that would flow from the U.S. alone. I am not as pessimistic as you are about Europe.

I am, however, pessimistic about the U.S., though not because of Islam. I think the U.S. will break apart along ethno-regional lines.

In either case, I don't know that there will necessarily be a Christian resurgence, but I think there will quite possibly be a right-wing/reactionary/fascist resurgence. It will be political/cultural without full religious underpinnings.

To add to your argument....

How many white muslims do you know of?

I've never heard of one. Ever.

How is Islam going to take over Europe, if they don't convert white people?

I'm far from a European expert on demographic shifts, but I'm wondering how Islam will ever be more than a nuisance in Europe if they can only convert people of color?

Thoughts?

[CaP7]

(06-28-2014 03:23 PM)KorbenDallas Wrote:  

Maybe that's what you think the left is about Soup, but that isn't what happens in real life.


In real life, conservatives donate far more money to charity, volunteer more in their communities, and do this with a lower average income than liberals.

Liberals are all about stealing from others to give to their cronies, and then give scraps to the dupes who support them. Then they take credit for giving out the scraps.

Uh, I'm pretty conservative, but the part about 'liberals stealing from their cronies' is waaaaay off if you are suggesting that it is only a liberal issue. It's more of a power issue. Conservatives do the same shit, only it's harder for poor people to feel good about it.

Don't delude yourself thinking that one side is better than the other. People choose sides based on their perspective, backgrounds, and teachers. It's exactly what the people in power want. People choosing sides...keeping the status quo.

[Samseau]

(06-28-2014 11:36 PM)CaP7 Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 09:42 PM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  

Scorpion: I didn't see your post before because I opened the thread before you wrote your comment.

Much of it I agree with, but I'm on the fence about Islam. It is definitely a major problem that is not to be under-estimated, but I think things could go either way in Europe. I think we're seeing the first emergent strains of push back. There is Golden Dawn in Greece. During the riots in Stockholm, a group of Swedes organised themselves for defence. There were only fifty of them or something like that, but that was one little neighbourhood. There are far right parties springing up all over the place. None of these groups have by any means been really successful, and in some cases, they've been stamped on pretty hard by the treasonous governments and mass media. Yet the feeling is growing.

Islam's success will depend upon a slow burn. If things don't hit the fan within a generation or two, I think your prognosis will turn out correct for reasons of fertility and conversion. On the other hand, I think that there is a lot of tinder lying around, and there are a lot of ill feelings below the surface. Things could get out of hand. White Europeans -- especially the under and lower classes -- do have a capacity for violence that is just below the surface and can be very energetic. The really big advantage white Europeans have though is that they are simply smarter and better able to organise and make use of resources. Some of the non-English areas of England now are a complete pig sty. Those guys literally couldn't get laid in a brothel. If the state didn't actively help them, or if it became so ineffectual that it lost control, the Islamists in the West would get their arses handed to them.

Another thing too is that if a conflict were to break out in one European country, just as there would be support from the Muslim world, I think there'd actually be a lot of counter-jihadists who would travel from all over Europe to aid the natives. You'd see Poles, Austrians, Greeks, Norwegians, Brits, etc. converge on Belgium quick smart if things got out of hand there, for example. There'd also be a lot of funding from abroad, too. Plenty of European expats or their descendants would send money to the counter-jihad. There'd be tons of money (and maybe even personnel and expertise) that would flow from the U.S. alone. I am not as pessimistic as you are about Europe.

I am, however, pessimistic about the U.S., though not because of Islam. I think the U.S. will break apart along ethno-regional lines.

In either case, I don't know that there will necessarily be a Christian resurgence, but I think there will quite possibly be a right-wing/reactionary/fascist resurgence. It will be political/cultural without full religious underpinnings.

How many white muslims do you know of?

I've never ever heard of one. Ever.

How is Islam going to take over Europe, if they don't convert white people?

I'm far from a European expert on demographic shifts, but I'm wondering how Islam will ever be more than a nuisance in Europe if they can only convert people of color?

Thoughts?

There's actually been many white Muslims, because many Christian lands were conquered. Islam had a presence in Spain, southern Italy, and eventually conquered what is known as present-day Turkey (the former Byzantine empire).

The Ottoman Empire specifically used Christian boys and converted them into Muslims as an elite fighting force.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janissary

In many parts of Turkey, and the Middle East today, you will find random white people or even white families. Granted there has been a lot of mixing and that's what produces that swarthy look on many Arab men, but you can still find some white ones.

[CaP7]

As a WASP American, it is very hard for me to imagine a traditional Spaniard, or an Italian, in modern times, identifying with Mecca and Medina.

[scorpion]

(06-29-2014 12:15 AM)CaP7 Wrote:  

As a WASP American, it is very hard for me to imagine a traditional Spaniard, or an Italian, in modern times, identifying with Mecca and Medina.

You realize this is what the Romans used to think about Christianity two thousand years ago, right? They regarded it as a death cult invented by some crazy Jews from the desert. The idea that it would become Rome's official state religion, much less dominate Europe and spread worldwide was unfathomable to them.

But it did.

Whether you attribute Christianity's success to divine mandate or simply to blind chance, the fact that it did succeed demonstrates that large-scale religious conversions can occur over relatively short time frames.

The fact is that most people will simply believe whatever they're told to believe, and whatever they're peer-pressured into believing. With Islam particularly there are compelling reasons to convert once a critical mass of Muslims infiltrate your area: they tend to kill you if you don't. That's more than enough incentive for the weak-willed and the non-believers, who would find it preferable to become a fake Muslim rather than a corpse.