charlesf
18d ago
I feel similarly when I find an article that is supposed to be about a subject I'm interested in, only to be presented with an article that is about the author, with the ostensible 'subject' as the backdrop for a largely biographical story. I'm fine with autobiographies if they are explicitly that, but an article that is supposed to be about, say the history of telephone technology, is in fact about the authors trip to a telephone museum, or the crazy encounter she had while researching the subject.
charlesf
18d ago
I use a fair amount of cash as I make regular purchases that give a discount for it (or more accurately charge a fee for using a card of some sort, but its presented as a cash discount to placate the public.) I've not seen the old bills in a long time. My sister is a district manager for a bank chain and she says the machines they use to intake cash would sort those for return to the treasury for disposal a decade ago.
edit - ive got about 500 in 20s on me now and the oldest one is from 2021.
charlesf
24d ago
A leftist doing what Charlie did, travelling around colleges to initiate debates, wouldn't really find debates all that often. This does kind of happen though, but they're just called guests, or maybe speakers. They get to use a theatre or or larger classroom and are generally welcomed.
I went to a Catholic high school and took a class on the different varieties of Christianity, both historical and modern, both extinct and existent. Jehovah's Witnesses we used as the example for a modern, existent, non-trinitarian division of Christianity. We learned about some older, extinct ones too like Arianism. While the LDS church does also seem to fit the non-trinitarian definition, they weren't generally lumped in with the JWs. The class was taught by a Jesuit, who despite being a member of the Catholic clergy did make an effort to teach the material objectively, with clear times in class where we could discuss what we thought of these different groups and he would also as his personal opinions at times, always in conformity to Catholic understanding. He tended to divide the 'wrong' Christians into two broad groups: those who have misinterpreted genuine scripture (he put the JWs in this group) and those who have elaborated, extended, and expanded what they think counts as scripture to an extent that they aren't really Christians at all anymore if you examine them in depth at all. He put the LDS church in this group (as well as Islam). He actually mused on the similarities between Mormons and Muslims more than once. His take as to why they were alike was that both groups (early Mormons and 6th century Arabs) had received the proper scripture, both descend from historically Christian populations, but found the New Testament unsatisfying to their egos and elaborated falsely upon the legit scriptures b/c they needed a way to make their group the main characters in the story of God, implying their motivations were both childish and selfish, and a deliberate rejection of grace. He was fun when you could get him going.
More options
Context Copy link