> Fires the guy whose job was assassinating heads of state

> Gets assassinated

> Guy who got fired gets on the investigative comittee which fucks up the investigation

Who could it be 🤔

Technically correct. It’s a valid comparison to Catholicism and Catholicism is, indeed, a bad faith.

This shouldn’t be misconstrued as women being less than a man it’s just that their roles are different.

Oh, I get it, they’re separate but equal!

What a load of horseshit.

Catholic and Orthodox have way less loonies comparatively than either evangelicals or the fedora wearing atheist crowd which is basically another form of protestantism.

I’ve never been religious by my little sister was. She loved helping out at Mass every Sunday, and volunteered to be an alter server. She was one of the most faithful and good-hearted Christians I’ve ever met. As long as you didn’t bring up abortion, anyway.

Then one day the priest said she wasn’t allowed to anymore, because she was a girl. He said that only boys should be allowed up in the front of church. His justification was that being an alter server was practice for being a priest, and only men were allowed to be priests.

Do you happen to know what the Catholic Church’s justification for only allowing male priests is, by the way? Well you see, God is male, obviously, and the Church is symbolically married to God, so that means that the Church must be symbolically female, and priests are symbolically married to the Church (the Church is poly?) meaning, of course, that priests have to be male.

If you get a Protestant or a fedora atheist, you’re basically rolling the dice, but if you get a Catholic, you know for a fact that they’re at minimum fine with being part of a deeply sexist, homophobic, and authoritarian institution.

Fucking Amazon would be a better moral authority than the Catholic Church because at least Amazon doesn’t explicitly descriminate based on sex. Always the last to be dragged into the future, kicking and screaming the whole time, since Galileo if not before.

WKUK - Pope Rap

The military industrial complex.

“People used to live to be 900 years old.”

They also used to be able to fly, according to my dad, who was not happy with me when I laughed it off because I thought he was joking.

This is a really dumb perspective, in general. By that logic I could say, “If Holocaust denialism is so baseless, then why does it get censored so much? If there’s no truth to it, wouldn’t you want people talking about it?” No, it’s censored because it is baseless, because we don’t want people spreading around long debunked misinformation. Just because something is untrue doesn’t mean that people repeating it can’t create confusion, doubt, etc.

I mean, look at all the bullshit propaganda the right puts out, and because they have so much money backing it, strengthening their signal, it’s all some people ever hear, and if some spends thousands of hours watching Fox News, and the other side gets like 20 minutes once a year at Thanksgiving, which narrative they go with is going to have very little to do with what’s actually true.

That same far-right media sphere has spread out from the US to all sorts of small countries around the world. If you look at them, you’ll often find right-wingers in those countries screaming about shit that doesn’t even apply to their country, because it’s what this propaganda network told them to be mad about. I mean, fucking anti-mask protests in Japan, for example.

Regardless of your perspective on Tienanmen Square, this logic of, “If it’s not true then there’s no reason to censor it” doesn’t really hold up.

Kiseido Go Server (KGS)

If KGS’s UI looks like it hasn’t been updated in 20 years, that’s because it’s already perfect. There’s no ads, it’s purely functional, it does exactly what it needs to do and nothing more. If you click on “KGS Plus” you have the option to spend money on lectures given by human pros. Otherwise it’s completely free, and it’s still an active go server that’s been around forever.

For all intents and purposes, I’m opposed to death penalty. I am, in practice, less prone to violence than the vast majority of people. But I’m also honest and transparent about my beliefs.

The working class is so far from power that it’s virtually impossible to achieve victory while pulling punches. Either we roll over and accept things, or we go all out and use whatever means and tactics are most useful to secure power. If you go halfway and present an actual threat to power (even through nonviolence) they will use any means available to neutralize that threat. Failure means death, and it could be generations, centuries even, until there’s another opportunity for change. If you’re not prepared to use every method at your disposal to win, then you simply shouldn’t pick up the fight in the first place.

Of course, nonviolent tactics can be useful and pragmatic, in many cases, they are more effective than violent tactics. However, the choice of tactic should be driven by an honest and pragmatic assessment of the actual circumstances, and not by preconceived ideological notions about morality. And that goes both ways, it is also unacceptable to prioritize violent tactics just because someone finds them more appealing or exciting. And for the record, I’m not saying that violent tactics are the most suitable for the present circumstances. I’m just not willing to write them off for all circumstances.

For example: Suppose a resistance cell in France captures a group of SS soldiers as prisoners, but the Nazis are on their trail and preparing an attack. If the cell doesn’t execute the prisoners, there’s a chance they will be rescued and will end up contributing to the German war effort. On the other hand, perhaps those prisoners could provide valuable intel that outweighs the risk. The decision on whether to execute them should, ideally, be based on these tactical considerations, rather than either an emotional aversion to violence or an emotional desire for revenge (no matter how deserved it may be).

If you don’t have your head in the game and your eye on the prize, and the other side does, then you’re probably going to lose. And fighting and losing is worse than not fighting at all. It’s better to give up and roll over than to go out and get a bunch of people killed over a hopeless cause.

Naturally, all of this is very unrelated to the reality of how the death penalty is used in the present day, which I oppose unequivocally.

Source on what? That the founders owned slaves?

Trump doesn’t give a shit about you or America. It’s just a slogan to dupe people as he persues his own personal interests. He’s corrupt, and the rest of the politicians don’t want to get rid of him because they’re just as corrupt and serving the same corporate interests. It’s a big club, and you ain’t in it.

He might hurt the people you dislike because it doesn’t cost him anything but he’s not going to actually improve your life or anybody else’s.

I definitely think there was more honor back in those days. I mean, thieves have always existed

The thieves and criminals that existed back then were truly vile though. These days, someone might break a window and carry off your TV. In those days, the thieves would take everything you owned and then press you into lifelong servitude, beating you if you ever disobeyed, they would even steal your children away from you and do the same to them.

And nobody did shit about it. Why? Because these thieves were “honorable” because there were “gentlemen’s agreements” and “decorum” and “civility” meant that they were allowed to do whatever the hell they wanted to those who were considered “racially inferior.”

If that’s what honor means, then fuck honor. Fuck this civility fetishism, this nostalgia for a time of greater injustice and oppression. Half the problems we have today is because of these evil and idiotic founders setting up a stupid dysfunctional system, in some ways designed to be dysfunctional because they were afraid of “the masses” voting according to their own interests and freeing the slaves the elites relied on for their lavish lifestyles.

Yes, revolutions do tend to be bloody. That doesn’t mean that I have to choose between endorsing every act of violence or condemning every act of violence.

The reality is, in any conflict, innocent people usually end up getting hurt. It’s unfortunate, but if that conflict means preventing or ending other conflicts, then it’s potentially justifiable in my eyes.

If the government is, for example, drafting people en masse and forcing them to kill and die for no good reason, then overthrowing that government is justifiable, because innocent people were getting hurt anyway.

THERE were two “Reigns of Terror,” if we would but remember it and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders are all for the “horrors” of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by lightning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror—that unspeakably bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves.

-Mark Twain

I didn’t say that. I’m not giving some kind of blanket endorsement about “axing anyone involved in ownership.” It’s not an all or nothing deal.

I’m opposed to the bourgeois state using the death penalty against proles.

Vietnam. Decent enough government and standard of living, and they whooped America’s ass so bad that it’d be political suicide to go back there. I mean, what kind of timeline would we have to be on for someone to be stupid enough to… hmm.

Considering that fucking Greenland is caught up in it now, idk that anywhere is safe.

I’ll believe Trump actually intends to cut the military when he does it and not a minute sooner. People on both sides like to pretend he’s an isolationist but military spending only went up in his first term. Likely, he’s just going to pivot to China.

Ofc it’s congress who sets the budget so he can just quietly sign off on the increases the same way he quietly gives tax cuts to the rich.

What they think they’re doing and what they’re actually doing are two different questions. What they’re aiming to do is keep things trucking along while making as much profit as possible, more or less the same as most politicians, but with a bit more of a realpolitic approach. There is no long term plan, and that goes for basically anyone remotely near to the levers of power. What we have is a system of competing groups all singularly focused on maximizing their profits for the next quarter, nobody’s actually at the helm and it’s an open question whether anyone could take the helm and alter the course from the natural progression determined by systemic forces.

Where we are actually headed, regardless of who’s in charge, is a matter of several inconvertible facts. First, the US is clearly in decline and will eventually lost its spot as global hegemon, at this point, there is a serious risk that it will start WWIII in response, as Americans are not ones to accept defeat gracefully. Second, climate change will render more and more areas in developing nations unstable or uninhabitable, causing a major refugee crisis which has already started and is going to get considerably worse. What measures will be taken to maintain the dividing lines that keep people from poor countries out of rich countries is another question, and it may well be answered with genocide.

If, by some miracle, cooler heads prevail and we don’t start WWIII, and you’re lucky enough to have been born in a rich country, then we will likely just see things get gradually and progressively worse. But it will be the kind of apocalypse where you still have to go to work. Day to day life will carry on, just with more uncomfortable things you have to push out of mind, more frequent shootings, the reemergence of all kinds diseases and more pandemics that you’ll be expected to work through. There isn’t going to be a tipping point that causes a revolution, nor are the elites going to unveil a secret plot to make everyone eat bugs or whatever. You’re just going to be working longer hours, affording less, retiring later (if at all), and probably having to navigate and even more bullshit process for applying for jobs. Going further into this sort of “boring dystopia” is almost certainly where we’re headed.

The two most important political priorities, arguably the only two priorities that really matter, are demilitarization andopposing war with China, and opposing genocide of foreigners/refugees/immigrants. These are the things we will be facing, perhaps within the next 10 years (but if not then certainly later), and if we aren’t able to organize resistance along those lines, things are going to get very ugly. Actually stopping the decline is very unrealistic/implausible and has been for some time.

I was raised Catholic but rejected it pretty much immediately when I reached the age of reason (~13 or so).

So all I have to do is listen to and obey everything my parents, teachers, and religious leaders tell me and I’ll go to heaven, but, if I had been born into a Muslim family in one of the countries we were bombing, doing that would get me sent to Hell and I need to reject everything I was taught, get on a plane, randomly walk into the right church, and believe everything they tell me. Oh, and if I was like some random Chinese farmer a thousand years before planes were invented, I guess I’m just fucked. Yeah somehow I don’t believe that an all-good perfectly-just god would have every soul play fucking roulette to determine what their chances in life will be of getting into heaven.

It wasn’t until much later that I learned about the history of this contradiction, which goes back to a 400’s debate between Augustine and Pelagius regarding original sin. Pelagius argued that it was theoretically possible, but incredibly difficult, to live a life free of sin and therefore not need Jesus’ forgiveness. He was also critical of the way Christians were integrating with the Roman empire, with all the same practices but now the social climbers called themselves Christian to win the emperor’s favor while otherwise doing all the same shit they would otherwise. Augustine rejected this, arguing that the Father would not sacrifice the Son unless it was strictly necessary, furthermore, Pelagius’ arguments would undermine the authority of the church (this was stated explicitly). Augustine invented the concept of original sin as something passed down through generations (despite this making zero sense), cited a mistranslated passage from scripture to support it, and used that to explain how even someone who lived a perfectly innocent life deserved to go to hell. This included, of course, fetuses. It was the Church’s position for a very long time that if you have an abortion, or even a miscarriage, then your baby’s soul is burning in hell.

What’s particularly funny to me about this is that, after Pelagius was denounced as a heretic for saying people needed to actually live virtuously instead of just relying on Jesus to forgive them, he became so reviled that people were often accused of “semi-Pelagianism.” All through the Reformation, everyone was accusing each other of being “semi-Pelagians” and trying to position themselves as the true inheritors of the Augustinian tradition. It wasn’t until relatively recently that anyone started saying, “Hey, maybe the Augustinian position is actually kinda fucked up.”