TheBookOfAllan
No bio...
User ID: 802
TheBookOfAllan
1yr ago
if the often claimed "they settle down with a beta" afterwards happens, they still get a partner.
Problem is this is not happening anymore, or at least slowing down dramatically. Every year marriage rates fall for all ages, and has been dramatically reducing ever since 1990.
TheBookOfAllan
1yr ago
I'm not sure if it's simply because of the political climate in the place i live, but the Holocaust is definitely treated with a far sterner hand than other forms of genocide denial in the western world, and by a large margin. In all likelihood it probably transpired very similarly to how historians think it did and the numbers will probably never be completely accurate given the chaos of the time period, but I'm more inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt with such a large scale event. But I've found myself having to defend Holocaust deniers in Canada because of how draconian the laws have become up here. It has to be said, what is so special about holocaust denial as opposed to other forms of denialism regarding events of the 20th century?
Before you accuse me of hyperbole, in Canada there is currently active laws that were recently passed that specifically outlaw holocaust denial in particular, in public.Thats right, you will be put in jail for up to 2 years for any type of spoken "Antisemitism," including holocaust denial. This is absurd when you take into account the complete ambiguity that these laws were put in place with.
Now this would be all well and good, except this type of hate speech law is exclusively targeting this specific genocide. There are not real consequences for denying any other genocide. In fact, three years ago an assistant professor at the university I attended publicly denied the Holodomor as "Nazi propaganda."
I'm ethnically Ukrainian. Not only did he not get arrested, not only did he not get fired, he is still employed at the university. Call me whatever you wish, but that is extremely unjust. These laws are not developed with some sort of altruistic end in mind, and they are not enacted with the same amount of utility that laws against holocaust denial are. You should never be put in jail for simply thinking something. It is extremely frustrating, and it does not mean i hate Jews when i point out these clear inconsistencies and injustices with how these hate laws are currently installed. I find myself having to defend Holocaust deniers even though i do not have any real sympathy towards their arguments, simply because the laws against them are increasingly unfair, and have essentially made it illegal to think the wrong thoughts. It's not, and should not ever be illegal to think dumb shit. Holocaust denial is on the same level of believing in a flat earth or 5G cell tower conspiracies. But one should not be thrown in jail for believing in them. Much like your comment is suggesting, any criticism of this is now tantamount to holocaust denial, which therefore inherently means that I am anti-semetic. What now should we do in this situation?
TheBookOfAllan
1yr ago
All of those talking points miss the point I'm making to begin with. You say you would strongly oppose these laws, and yet opposing these laws are now implied to be inherently Anti-Semitic. That is the real catch-22. I am not making talking points, i am saying that it is now illegal to point out certain legal injustices. There is not a proper way to handle that.
TheBookOfAllan
1yr ago
December 13, 2022
My friend and I recently got into a lengthy discussion over the topic of interracial dating while having coffee one morning. What made it specifically interesting was the perspective from which we both were perceiving it. I am a white Christian reactionary, and he is a mixed-race homosexual man. We were at a bar the previous night and i had politely declined a black woman's advances, and when asked why in the morning i explained to him that i have a strong preference for white women. I explained that i do find other races of women attractive, including black women, but that i simply cannot picture myself married with a woman of a different race and desired children who resembled myself. I don't usually explain this to people, but he seemed fairly interested.
It is here where he interjected and told me that the way i view interracial relationships were wrong, and that sooner rather than later the west will be a homogenization of all different races. He explained to me of a recent study he had read that said that interracial marriages already encompassed 30% of all marriages and is at upwards of 93% acceptance rate among the population, and both are projected to climb. This shocked me, as I explained to him that within my main communities that are predominately white I still found interracial marriages to be relatively rare through simple observation. I told him there is absolutely no way that is correct, as there is no way 30% of white people are in interracial relationships.
That night I did some more research and found out the realities of it. Now the biggest hurdle is that i can only really make claims based on marriages, there is no data on interracial dating. The data may be far higher when we take that into consideration but i could find nothing to substantiate any definite claims. The claim of 30% is not true. As of 2017 17% of the overall population is in an interracial relationship. There is also a 94% acceptance rate of interracial marriages in aggregate.
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2017/05/18/1-trends-and-patterns-in-intermarriage/
https://www.asanet.org/wp-content/uploads/attach/journals/apr20srefeature.pdf
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2378023118814610
It gets more interesting the more you delve into the makeup of the interracial relationships themselves. While definitely seeing an increase, White people have had the lowest growth of interracial marriages in the last forty years. Only about 11% of the white population will intermarry. And the gender disparity between white men and white women who intermarry are exactly the same as they were in 1980.
Among white newlyweds, there is no notable gender gap in intermarriage – 12% of men and 10% of women had married someone of a different race or ethnicity in 2015. The same was true in 1980, when 4% of recently married men and 4% of recently married women had intermarried.
Unlike many other ethnicity's, the intermarriage rates among whites are also constant regardless of education levels.
Among white newlyweds, the likelihood of intermarrying is fairly similar regardless of education level. One-in-ten of those with a high school diploma or less have a spouse of another race or ethnicity, as do 11% of those with some college experience and 12% of those with at least a bachelor’s degree. Rates don’t vary substantially among white newlywed men or women with some college or less, though men with a bachelor’s degree are somewhat more likely to intermarry than comparable women (14% vs. 10%).
For comparison, Black intermarriage rates have tripled since 1980, from 5% to 18%. The most dramatic gap in all the data exists between college educated black men and women.
Black men are twice as likely as black women to have a spouse of a different race or ethnicity (24% vs. 12%).
Also, just as a sidenote that shocked me, 54%! Of US born Asian women marry outside their race.
Overall, while whites have the largest amount of people intermarrying simply due to sheer logistical numbers, they are statistically the least likely to date outside of their race, and relatively equal rates for both men and women. I brought this up to him the next time I saw him, and he was quite shocked at this. He brought up an interesting question.
Considering that the general acceptance of interracial marriage is so high, why is it so relatively rare? We came up with a couple conclusions
-
There is simply not enough intersection or engagement between different ethnic communities. If you are a certain race, you most often will associate with others of the same ethnicity simply due to family connections/religious affiliations etc.
-
Most are outwardly accepting of it, but secretly discourage it. This is what I personally think it is, just simply based on my actual experiences. My parents could go on and on about however noble their intentions are, but if I brought home a black woman or a native woman, they would be supportive but be incredibly disappointed. I also see many white women disparaged in friend groups if they date inter-racially as well. I even found studies that suggest this has been measured (Could be misrepresented however)
- Religion. Most ethnic groups have different religious beliefs that would be difficult to compromise on if starting a family. It would be difficult if I were to date a Hindu woman for example, because then quickly come into contact with irreconcilable differences. She wants to have a Hindu wedding; I want to make Christian vows. She wishes to raise our child Hindu; I was to raise him Christian. I don’t see any way how these could be reconciled. Most of the successful interracial relationships I’ve ever seen have always had a shared religious belief between them. It just makes everything way easier.
It is also interesting that both my friend and I came into the conversation of interracial marriages with the context that that means some sort of mixture of whites. We never considered that the majority would be between different ethnic groups. It actually came into my head reading this article from refinery.
https://www.refinery29.com/en-ca/2021/12/10794659/interracial-relationships-black-women-whiteness\
While I resent much of the post-modern perspectives about race this is not the place for that, but I couldn’t help but notice that I ended up agreeing on many of her points. We do look at interracial relationships much like the perspectives that she presents. But the fact still remains, even in a period of time that is most likely the most accepting of interracial marriages throughout any point in history, almost to the point of encouragement, Interracial relationships still remain relatively rare.
TheBookOfAllan
1yr ago
December 13, 2022
My friend and I recently got into a lengthy discussion over the topic of interracial dating while having coffee one morning. What made it specifically interesting was the perspective from which we both were perceiving it. I am a white Christian reactionary, and he is a mixed-race homosexual man. We were at a bar the previous night and i had politely declined a black woman's advances, and when asked why in the morning i explained to him that i have a strong preference for white women. I explained that i do find other races of women attractive, including black women, but that i simply cannot picture myself married with a woman of a different race and desired children who resembled myself. I don't usually explain this to people, but he seemed fairly interested.
It is here where he interjected and told me that the way i view interracial relationships were wrong, and that sooner rather than later the west will be a homogenization of all different races. He explained to me of a recent study he had read that said that interracial marriages already encompassed 30% of all marriages and is at upwards of 93% acceptance rate among the population, and both are projected to climb. This shocked me, as I explained to him that within my main communities that are predominately white I still found interracial marriages to be relatively rare through simple observation. I told him there is absolutely no way that is correct, as there is no way 30% of white people are in interracial relationships.
That night I did some more research and found out the realities of it. Now the biggest hurdle is that i can only really make claims based on marriages, there is no data on interracial dating. The data may be far higher when we take that into consideration but i could find nothing to substantiate any definite claims. The claim of 30% is not true. As of 2017 17% of the overall population is in an interracial relationship. There is also a 94% acceptance rate of interracial marriages in aggregate.
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2017/05/18/1-trends-and-patterns-in-intermarriage/
https://www.asanet.org/wp-content/uploads/attach/journals/apr20srefeature.pdf
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2378023118814610
It gets more interesting the more you delve into the makeup of the interracial relationships themselves. While definitely seeing an increase, White people have had the lowest growth of interracial marriages in the last forty years. Only about 11% of the white population will intermarry. And the gender disparity between white men and white women who intermarry are exactly the same as they were in 1980.
Among white newlyweds, there is no notable gender gap in intermarriage – 12% of men and 10% of women had married someone of a different race or ethnicity in 2015. The same was true in 1980, when 4% of recently married men and 4% of recently married women had intermarried.
Unlike many other ethnicity's, the intermarriage rates among whites are also constant regardless of education levels.
Among white newlyweds, the likelihood of intermarrying is fairly similar regardless of education level. One-in-ten of those with a high school diploma or less have a spouse of another race or ethnicity, as do 11% of those with some college experience and 12% of those with at least a bachelor’s degree. Rates don’t vary substantially among white newlywed men or women with some college or less, though men with a bachelor’s degree are somewhat more likely to intermarry than comparable women (14% vs. 10%).
For comparison, Black intermarriage rates have tripled since 1980, from 5% to 18%. The most dramatic gap in all the data exists between college educated black men and women.
Black men are twice as likely as black women to have a spouse of a different race or ethnicity (24% vs. 12%).
Also, just as a side note that shocked me, 54%! Of US born Asian women marry outside their race.
Overall, while whites have the largest amount of people intermarrying simply due to sheer logistical numbers, they are statistically the least likely to date outside of their race, and relatively equal rates for both men and women. I brought this up to him the next time I saw him, and he was quite shocked at this. He brought up an interesting question.
Considering that the general acceptance of interracial marriage is so high, why is it so relatively rare? We came up with a couple conclusions
-
There is simply not enough intersection or engagement between different ethnic communities. If you are a certain race, you most often will associate with others of the same ethnicity simply due to family connections/religious affiliations etc.
-
Most are outwardly accepting of it, but secretly discourage it. This is what I personally think it is, just simply based on my actual experiences. My parents could go on and on about however noble their intentions are, but if I brought home a black woman or a native woman, they would be supportive but be incredibly disappointed. I also see many white women disparaged in friend groups if they date inter-racially as well. I even found studies that suggest this has been measured (Could be misrepresented however)
- Religion. Most ethnic groups have different religious beliefs that would be difficult to compromise on if starting a family. It would be difficult if I were to date a Hindu woman for example, because then quickly come into contact with irreconcilable differences. She wants to have a Hindu wedding; I want to make Christian vows. She wishes to raise our child Hindu; I was to raise him Christian. I don’t see any way how these could be reconciled. Most of the successful interracial relationships I’ve ever seen have always had a shared religious belief between them. It just makes everything way easier.
It is also interesting that both my friend and I came into the conversation of interracial marriages with the context that that means some sort of mixture of whites. We never considered that the majority would be between different ethnic groups. It actually came into my head reading this article from refinery.
https://www.refinery29.com/en-ca/2021/12/10794659/interracial-relationships-black-women-whiteness\
While I resent much of the post-modern perspectives about race this is not the place for that, but I couldn’t help but notice that I ended up agreeing on many of her points. We do look at interracial relationships much like the perspectives that she presents. But the fact still remains, even in a period of time that is most likely the most accepting of interracial marriages throughout any point in history, almost to the point of encouragement, Interracial relationships still remain relatively rare.
TheBookOfAllan
1yr ago
I wouldn't want to live in a world like that in the first place. The trans-humanist undertone of transgenderism is precisely why it makes me so uncomfortable. In a way I oppose it because it has the possibility of becoming the world in which you describe.
TheBookOfAllan
1yr ago
Noone wants to erase you. And the ultimate proof of that is liberal women's love for white men.
Also, people have natural self-preservation instincts but not so much on the race level. Those need to be socially induced
Noone wants to erase you.
How can you reconcile these together? Regarding the entire topic of discussion this just supports the overall idea of OP, for much of the media and entertainment industry, including children's books, are pushing Anti-white/ Pro-miscegenation propaganda to influence more to the ideas of social progressivism. You say that pro-ethnic views need to be applied from the top down in order to be effective, yet OP is talking specifically about social agendas that are pushed the opposite way. And then through all of that you say that white women prefer white men regardless of the social programming, so how can racial self-preservation not be instinctual if still trending strongly regardless of those social influences?
TheBookOfAllan
1yr ago
What they mean is that whites are secure enough to know that such generalizations are only directed against political opponents, not against their race.
By their own definition that seems to be the same thing.
TheBookOfAllan
1yr ago
The future has no political orientation. I would argue this is a very distorted view of history, almost Whig. Even the conception of 'Conservatism' you seem to think of as a failed endeavor is a thoroughly contemporary political notion that will not be recognizable in even 100 years. Roman democracy collapsed and was surpassed by an empire for 400 years. Tell an Islamic scholar in 1258 about the notion of ever-continuing progress and i doubt he will believe you. Even modern perceptions of this are distorted because of our geographical location and cultural biases. Russia enthusiastically attempted to enter some sort of western hegemony in the 90's and it failed spectacularly. In 500 years (if we avoid the possibility of nuclear destruction) It is possible that this liberal hegemony has become the focus and identity of the entire world, but it also just as likely that humans of the future will look back at our ideals much like we look back at astrology or early medicine. Things that had good intentions at the time but ended up being fruitless and ultimately against a proper organization of the world.
TheBookOfAllan
1yr ago
Seems highly optimistic for NATO. I genuinely believe that Russia would resort to Nuclear solutions if they become sufficiently desperate. If Ukraine was to fall into NATO hands it gives the West a far too easy land path into Moscow. I don't think this war is even close to over and the future of the conflict Is unknowable at this point in time. I have a sneaking suspicion however that the Ukraine that was is essentially lost forever.
TheBookOfAllan
1yr ago
The quote that the pope used from Kierkegaard is from Either/or and is actually about that entire premise. That there exists a metaphysical space beyond the comprehension of human beings that is completely out of the bounds of empirical rationality, and can also never be accepted through rational explanations. One that is ultimately the most important decision of ones life and which there is no real evidence in either direction. In many ways your comment is exactly the type of person he explains is laughing at him.
TheBookOfAllan
1yr ago
I'll admit it's a pretty obtuse subject. It's one of those things that's difficult to understand if not coming from particular assumptions, and is built upon theologians like Augustine. Essentially he argues that one cannot really understand true metaphysics unless graced with divine spirit, and that is done seemingly arbitrarily and only after continuous searching, and maybe even never at all. If one is to get into Kierkegaard I would recommend Either/or and Sickness unto death for a good entry point. I would also recommend Michael Segrue's lecture's on him as a good introduction to his general demeanor. He's like a religious counterpart to Nietzsche.
TheBookOfAllan
1yr ago
TERF WARS
Hogwarts legacy, a high budget Harry Potter video game releases in a few weeks, and discussion around it has quickly evolved into another highly charged political issue for many within the gaming sphere.
As background, Harry Potter was created by J.K. Rowling, who in the last number of years has gotten a vitriolic amount of criticism by hard coded members of the blue tribe. Rowling is what is referred to in leftist spheres as a “TERF,” a Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist. In other words, she is a traditional third wave feminist, but does not acknowledge trans women as being equally legitimate as biological females. Criticism of Rowling began in 2020 when she exposed criticism of certain linguistic tendencies that she had progressively seen engross within her social circles. An article was posted on Devex with the headline…
Opinion: Creating a more equal post-COVID-19 world for people who menstruate
Rowling took to twitter to attempt to point out some of the inconsistencies in reasoning that she believed these social beliefs couldn’t reconcile with established feminist/progressive worldviews. She began by explaining that ‘people who menstruate,’ used to simply just be called women. And after receiving a bit of criticism herself she extrapolated on the details of her argument.
“If sex isn’t real, there’s no same-sex attraction. If sex isn’t real, the lived reality of women globally is erased. I know and love trans people, but erasing the concept of sex removes the ability of many to meaningfully discuss their lives. It isn’t hated to speak the truth,”
“The idea that women like me, who’ve been empathetic to trans people for decades, feeling kinship because they’re vulnerable in the same way as women—i.e., to male violence—‘hate’ trans people because they think sex is real and has lived consequences—is a nonsense.”
After the obvious storm of vile that came as a response to this, she then went further in extrapolating her views in an entire blogpost that went into fairly meticulous detail around the entire trans issue as well as major problems that she sees may come as a result of it. I highly encourage you to read it, if not for the argumentative qualities than simply because of the sheer balls of the entire debacle, It wouldn’t be out of place if it was placed on this very culture thread.
Instead of being silenced or somehow intimidated by threats from these cultural forces, she points out that this is primarily one of the motivators of her immediate dislike of the community in general, including their constant use of hyperbole and slurs. The bitter criticism she received did not in any way overwhelm her, but instead made her far more resolute and ingrained to her worldview. She had become more fervently anti-trans since then, to points which are often hilarious. One may lose sight of the grievances often expressed by the left towards public figures, simply due to the sheer amount of it that is consistently thrown into public discourse. But it is important to point out that J.K. Rowling is a legitimate opponent of transgender ideology. Her most recent books have delved into themes that are consistently similar to the themes she has espoused. One book is literally about a detective trying to solve the case of a male serial killer who dresses up as a women in order to fool and kill biological women. Rowling gives extremely large donations to many charities who are their ideological enemies, as well as essentially banning transgender people from using any of her own charities that help victims of female abuse.
Before delving into the responses to this and the subsequent reactions, it is important to give context to what J.K. Rowling encapsulated during the prime years of her Harry Potter authorship. While harry potter is just popular in general, Blue Tribers LOVE Harry Potter, and at one time they >LOVED J.K. Rowling. Rowling’s influence in the early to mid naughts and 2010s cannot be overstated. In fact in many circumstances and social circles people began to read her novels because of her political affiliations, to support those who seemed to have blue coded interests in mind. Harry Potter had become synonymous with feminism and leftism in general, and as a result also became trumpeted by many in the early transgender movement. It isn’t simply because of her opposition to these ideas that she receives the amount of backlash that she does, but because of who she is. She at one point was one of the most influential feminists in the world and was a huge contributor to the cultural power that allowed it to influence so much of society, even in places like academia.
The responses to this given that context is frankly hilarious. It has been quite a long time since the progressive cultural zeitgeist has had such institutional opponent, particularly one that had for so long been such an icon of their movement. It is like if Luke Skywalker had joined the empire at the end of ESB.
This debate is continually devolving as it nears its release, and discussion about the game has been banned on multiple websites for its divisiveness.
It had led to an incredible amount of confusion towards that side of political isle, as regular attacks they are so used to employing, that are usually widely successful, seemingly have no effect on Rowling in the slightest. All they can resort to leading up to the release has been reputation destruction and hostility to those who plan on buying it. The most popular tactic used is guilt by association, who claim that if one buys Hogwarts Legacy, they are therefore inherently transphobic. Another important distinction you may notice is the difficulty many are having with disassociating themselves from what was probably their favorite intellectual property. There seems to be a desire to remove Rowling, but still somehow retain possession of the franchise itself, something that is frankly impossible. Take this for example, where fans removed Rowling’s name from her books before reselling them.
https://nypost.com/2023/01/13/reseller-removes-j-k-rowlings-name-from-harry-potter-books/]
Of course, everyone knows this is impossible. Rowling was wise enough to retain full possession of her intellectual work, and anything, and I mean anything relating to Harry Potter must be directly approved by her and she receives a good sum of the profits as well. Amusement parks, toys, video games, streaming sales, everything. Rowling is Harry Potter. Many now are used to franchises they once enjoyed being influenced in one way or another by these cultural elements in their favor, such as Star Wars, Star Trek, Lord of the rings, etc. It is highly ironic that a property is receiving so much backlash not for expressing any pro-red views, but simply because the creator does not agree with one of the fundamental viewpoints that have become synonymous with the left.
On the right, this has had an equally hilarious reaction. While certainly not as fervent or significant of a response, many have taken to supporting Rowling and expressing a desire to purchase Hogwarts Legacy as a form of protest. This includes everyone from Neo-cons to White nationalists.
It seems as if hardcoded Blue Tribe members are learning certain facts about modern cultural society that red tribe members have slowly learned throughout the decade or so. Cancel culture does not work on legitimate financial elites. It does not matter to what ends you try to smear Rowling with, she is and will always remain extravagantly wealthy and beyond any real financial or cultural danger. It is my guess that Hogwarts Legacy will sell extraordinarily well, for it looks to be a genuinely good video game, to the point where even those who are not familiar with Harry Potter may be attracted simply due to its quality. It is already the most pre-ordered game on Steam at the moment has no sign of slowing down. I suppose now that I am not making any particular argument in any way, but It is interesting to see a political force that is usually so successful seemingly work overtime for years on one particular target and see nothing but a proverbial scream into the wind.
TheBookOfAllan
1yr ago
I think the point i am trying to make is that there is a sharp difference between how someone of Rowling's stature is compared to less affluent celebrities. For example, take Louis CK. His life was permanently altered in a profound way. His agents dropped him, his show got cancelled and he was essentially blacklisted from his career for many years. I understand that the criticisms between them are distinct in a large way but neither of them did anything illegal. Rowling is above any type of that retaliation. Since she holds so much power by her ownership of such a popular property, she still holds ultimate power over thousands of jobs and in some instances, entire careers. If she decided to withdraw her trademark from select industries, she could do far more damage financially to publishers, move studios and amusement parks than they could ever dream to do to her. CK was rejected by many of his closest friends and business partners, but i doubt Rowling has had any real push-back from anyone in her day to day business dealings, because those around her simply cannot afford to do so.
TheBookOfAllan
1yr ago
I thank you for your clarifications and i apologize for any wrong information in my post. I will admit i am not really an avid reader of hers, and have never even read any of the Harry Potter books at all, and am simply observing what i see from the outside and attempted to get a grasp of the intricacies from the position i am perceiving them. I do keep up to date on game news and the topic is unavoidable in the communities at this point.
She is definitely not. She's an opponent of the excesses of the modern trans movement, and putting trans women in women's shelters and prisons, etc. She is not an opponent of trans people having civil rights, being free to live their lives as trans people, etc.
While i understand your point about this i still remain very skeptical. I believe Rowling holds far more politically incorrect views about trans people than what she espouses but understands that she is already edging on politically dangerous waters, although that is a strictly personal perception and i can't prove that either way. I have just noticed that most who demonstrate politically incorrect views usually hold far more hard-line opinions than they usually let on in public.
TheBookOfAllan
1yr ago
I mean obviously i can't decisively say its going to be a great game before its even released, but from the extensive gameplay trailers that have been released I can say that it's the most expensive Harry Potter game that has ever been made for sure. Regardless of the virtue of its gameplay it seems to encapsulate what so many people love about the universe, and that in of itself is enough reason it will probably sell like wild. It's almost like Star Wars, where regardless of the quality of the content, most people feel a draw towards simply existing in the world that it encompasses.
TheBookOfAllan
1yr ago
While it sounds rather conspiratorial, i don't see any other major power that would have the incentive to blow it up other than the united states. Russia is not going to damage their own infrastructure that gives them leverage in Europe, and no mainland European power would damage such a vital piece in their economic structures. While there is no real legitimate proof, the United States is the only real player that can benefit from it. They damage Russia's soft power in Europe while also forcing the European countries effected to rely more on the United States resources than before. It's a win-win. I don't see any other alternative.
TheBookOfAllan
1yr ago
This topic hit way closer to home than I had anticipated. I have been experiencing my own type of delusional paranoia that is remarkably similar to the topic you explain. I had an acid trip around New Years that turned very bad, and long story short I then became extremely paranoid about my health, and particularly my heart and lungs. I've regularly vaped for more than five years and I became anxious to exercise because i believed that it would inflame my cardiovascular system. It got to the point where I had my first panic attack at 26 years old because of it, ambulance and all. I became convinced that I had some type of congenital defect or some vaccine related myocarditis. I got a full check up, EKG, X-rays, blood tests, you name it. Everything came out fine. 177 cm, 165 Ibs. My doctor told me that my health was immaculate. It was literally all in my head. But it was so real. I literally felt like I was going to collapse and die at any moment, I was convinced of it. I felt every heartbeat, and every bed pain from sleeping wrong was misinterpreted as a coming disaster. It turns out that all it really boiled down to was that I was spending a little too much time by myself in my apartment, and consumed a little too much nicotine and caffeine that elevated my heart rate. It is incredible what your mind can convince itself of in the right circumstances.
TheBookOfAllan
1yr ago
He Gets Us
There has been great controversy over a recent Christian ad that played during the Super Bowl.
“He gets us,” the ad in question, and the organization that created it, is a subsidiary of the ‘The Signatry,’ a fund that aims to spread biblical teachings around the planet, which is also a business alias by another organization called “The Servant foundation.” It is one of the largest Christian Grant foundations in the world, with donations from many of the top churches in the country as well as billionaires such as David Green, the owner of hobby lobby. It has pledged over half a billion dollars to the spread of their message on a global scale, with a large portion going to America exclusively.
This has caused habitual controversy within secular circles among those blue tribe adjacent, with many of their reactions being familiar to those already within religious denominations. What is ironic, however, is that these ad campaigns were modeled in a way that was specifically tailored to the leftist worldview by very modern sects of Christianity. The campaign focused on a perception of Jesus with traits that are explicitly progressive. Examine some of the perspectives given by the organization
-Jesus was a refugee and an Immigrant
-Jesus was an ‘influencer’ who got ‘cancelled’ after standing up for something he believed in
-Jesus was wrongly judged
-Jesus had to control his outrage too
Take a look for yourself at some of the ads in question.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=0z0J-2P8a3s&ab_channel=HeGetsUs
https://youtube.com/watch?v=v1IJFJwexus&ab_channel=HeGetsUs
https://youtube.com/watch?v=QEEq5VTfmic&ab_channel=HeGetsUs
Since I assume most members of this forum are atheists, most would not look any deeper into the motivations or presentation of this ad campaign with any closer analysis than they would any other form of Christian evangelism. But the point of my post is not to examine this ad campaign, but to extrapolate on a current trend of modern Christianity that is exemplified within it.
To say that the ad campaign was a complete failure is an understatement. It resonated with very few non-religious people, failed spectacularly with leftists in general, and came with the same amount of pushback that any other Christian sentiments in popular media would receive.
AOC claimed that the ads “Makes fascism look benign.”
For full disclosure, I am a Christian who converted as an adult, and have perspectives of both religious and non-religious worldviews. There is a succinct lack of understanding of the goings on in the Christian community by non-religious people and I wish to shed a light on some of the current underpinnings.
Unbeknownst to many outside the church, Christians are dealing with a type of heretical civil conflict within their own faith. ‘Progressive Christianity’ has become commonplace in most urban centers around NA, and it is exactly as it sounds. They usually set up their own churches so they may freely practice their beliefs. Usually, they attract members with a more serious Christian appearance and then slowly ingratiate their own ideology as time goes by. They are a denomination that has made multiple doctrinal changes that are completely against more traditional Christianity.
-
They do not accept the divinity of Jesus. While traditional Christians believe Jesus to be the literal incarnation of God that walked the earth, progressive Christians merely believe that Jesus was a man who set a good moral example. This also implies that they deny the literal resurrection of Jesus. While these beliefs are not universal, the importance of faith in general is placed very low on the totem pole of progressive Christianity. This turns their interpretation of salvation into human self-actualization. Along with this, there comes with it a denial of the bible as ultimate authority. They believe the bible only goes so far as to give guidelines, but ultimately puts the bible secondary if it contradicts modern sensibilities.
-
Due to the first point, this lack of belief in the Divinity of Jesus and with the resurrection turns something that was once about salvation into simple moralism. This allows the Christian doctrine to be molded into something that fits more contemporary progressive worldviews, and gives them authority to shame and accuse other churches or Christians of not following 'correct' christian doctrine.
-
They embrace homosexuality. Gay people can become pastors and other authoritative figures within their churches. While traditional Christianity considers homosexuality a sin, progressive Christian will spout Jesus’ example of love and kindness to trump any biblical teachings that come from other writers in the New Testament. This allows them to still maintain some moral high ground that they accuse other churches and Christians of "unchristian like behavior" and "Not true Christians."
These are the churches that are heavily advertised on Tik-Tok and other social media websites and are extremely popular in that niche. The reality of the churches, however, is vastly different. I have been to many of these churches out of sheer curiosity, and I have never seen any of them survive for any significant period of time. The numbers they draw will repeatedly dwindle, as many of the congregation begin to understand the perspectives being espoused, and will leave the church for a more traditional one. I have many in my Church who are refugees from progressive churches and most of the stories are very similar. Over time their numbers will progressively dwindle, until they cannot afford to stay open and have no congregation. People who are not religious are not interested in becoming religious for simple political motivations, and people who are religious are interested in the legitimate spiritual traditions of the faith, not materialist interpretations of said traditions. Leftists who already hate Christianity are not going to be convinced by a softer form of it. Likewise, people who are already Christians are not going to be effected by people who don't even really believe in the core tenets of Christianity to begin with.
Everyone is familiar with the trend of progressive ideologues infiltrating certain niches and groups and slowly turning them into spokesman of their causes. Regardless of your views of religion or Christianity, it is an extremely durable belief system. It has survived for thousands of years, multiple empires, countless plagues, and disasters, and I don’t think far leftist types yet have an understanding of why that is. Christians don’t go to church or believe out of a hatred or dislike of Homosexuals. Christianity promises eternal life and spiritual salvation for just the simple belief in its figurehead. Progressive Christianity will always fail, because in order to justify their own inclusion of contemporary social beliefs they must subtract the very things about the philosophical aspects of Christianity that make it appealing in the first place.
TheBookOfAllan
1yr ago
I agree with @hydroacetylene below me here. I'm writing from the perspective of someone in a conservative church, and from the perspective of Christians it really is black and white. All progressive or liberal churches are seen with roughly the same amount of skepticism regardless of their distinctive characteristics. Non-Trinitarian sects would not even be considered Christians at all.
TheBookOfAllan
1yr ago
Could you give me a little background on this? I am completely unaware of the conflicts within the catholic church atm.
TheBookOfAllan
1yr ago
The things they said sound like Boomer-level excuses/groveling given by Rightists to Leftists for how "actually, Christianity isn't that bad because the founding figure shares what you claim your values are"
I unironically agree with this in a way. It is strange that leftists are usually extremely opposed to Christianity when it is the same belief system that championed many of the values that they espouse.
The book of Job is (from a certain point of view) "men will literally believe in an invisible, unfalsifiable, otherworldly power instead of going to therapy" and it's weird that nobody points this out.
No one points this out because that's not at all a genuine perspective of the Book of Job. Job is ultimately a explanation of why evil exists in the world and an ontological examination between the status of god and man.
A group that operates in/benefits from/is driven by conflict theory is tautologically incapable of questioning why people wouldn't want to submit to their power. This applies to both sides of the aisle.
true
TheBookOfAllan
1yr ago
I don't believe she was, as she was remarking specifically about the ad campaign itself and that was not one of the videos shown during the superbowl.
TheBookOfAllan
1yr ago
This thought arose from watching the bodycam video of the heroic police officers that was posted below. It reminded me of actual first person shooters that I played back when I was young.
This reminds me when the christchurch shooting happened. I saw the go-pro footage on 4chan. I was absolutely chilled to the bone about how similar it looked to any FPS game I had played all throughout middle and high school. I had always scoffed at the idea that video games had any real psychological similarity to real violence, but actually watching a mass shooting through the eyes of the shooter felt equal parts horrific and familiar.
Ever since I've had this nagging feeling that maybe we had been a little to hasty in overlooking the effects of video game violence on developing minds. Regardless of the multiple studies that have found the opposite conclusions, every time i play an FPS I get these weird flashbacks to watching the Christchurch and later, buffalo shootings. They are remarkably similar. Is it merely a coincidence that school shootings saw a rise with the proliferation of FPS games? It's a meme to talk about Doom in connection with the columbine shootings, but I can't get over this suspicion that maybe we were a little too hasty to dismiss these concerns in hindsight.
That's so ridiculous to me. It's like legislating to what degree a topic is up for scrutiny. I might make a post one of these days not discussing holocaust denial, but the Laws against holocaust denial, which are somehow more ridiculous and arbitrary than discussion around the actual holocaust. The laws against holocaust denial make even debating with holocaust deniers practically illegal in many countries. Here in Canada we have a law now that states you may only deny the holocaust privately in your own homes, and never in public. I can't think of any other issue that has such a precedent around it. Whats worse is that bringing it up and trying to have any type of discussion about the precedents of that automatically makes you a holocaust denying Nazi.
More options
Context Copy link