domain:abc.net.au
aaa
6m ago
The water boils because of a transfer of energy not because of causal power.
If you think that this materially changes anything I said then I don't know how to reach you
I think it does change things because every time I've heard that argument it ends with "and that's why god needs to exist here and now" and you don't get there with energy transfers because once the energy is transferred the source doesn't need to continue existing.
But there would be a reason why it's in one pattern instead of another. And mentioning light is actually more relevant to my argument! Because light is outside the infinite mirrors. There could be infinite mirrors and no face because no light! The infinity of the mirrors does not create an image.
I really don't know what you are even saying at this point. Usually these arguments are trying to prove the existence of god through a logical impossibility (i.e. non-existence of god is logically impossible thus god exists). I don't think there's anything logically impossible in the existence of an arbitrary arrangement of light, it doesn't need a cause.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
6m ago
Does this mean we have open season for dark humor, and you will defend the type of humor you don't like, or is this a lame gotcha attempt?
NullHypothesis
6m ago
I didn't know that about Destiny. Interesting.
It seems like Destiny's campus videos is a lengthier version of the Crowder change my mind segments. That being said, Crowder has had longer conversations with students too. Kirk has also posted full length hour long + uncut videos. I don't think Shapiro has ever done the campus sit down style videos. The conversations on average does seem shorter but I took a quick look at Destiny's change my mind videos at the average seems more like 15-25 minutes per student which is still higher than the average for Kirk (5-15 minutes).
Kirk's format is different because the student can come up and talk about a topic of their own choosing, versus the change my mind format videos where there is a set topic to be discussed and debated. Kirk was also massively more popular, so I think there is a tradeoff of trying to let as many students speak as possible.
I feel like in general, the average left leaning student in a college campus tends to be less informed on the reasons for their position compared to right leaning students. I think right leaning students are more used to having to hold their ground and thus have the greater willpower to continue a conversation even if their arguments get dismantled. The intention to communicate from both sides matters. Did Destiny get many hostile students that are easily triggered coming to talk to him?
I think Crowder was also the pioneer of the format and had to enter much hostile territory compared to Destiny or even Kirk. Crowder was definitely the more crass one too so he had a lot of haters. I don't think it's fair to criticize the length of the conversation if the student comes in with hostile intentions. It's not easy to build rapport with someone that hates you and isn't arguing in good faith. Even more so if they get triggered by an idea and become unable to discuss said topic. I don't feel much sympathy for students that willingly come up to discuss if they can't even discuss the idea. Maybe Crowder could've tried to coddle them, but if stating basic facts is enough to trigger an individual, I don't think there's anything you can do. Maybe they do go in with the full knowledge that there are students like that that will come and create a viral clip, but what would their options be? Not create the event to begin with? I guess someone operating on pure principle could choose to not share said content, but I'm not naive enough to believe Kirk and the like is operating solely on virtue.
I've seen segments where the student does come in with an open mind or is wiling to actually engage in discussion, and these are the ones that lead to longer conversations.
Posting edited clips of the conversation, I think is a fair criticism, but if you're running a business you play the game algorithms gives you, and I believe 2017 YouTube really favored 10-20 minute videos. Nowadays, it's shorts and long form videos. From what I see, they post the full video but then create clips from that video for the viral moments.
I don't think I can decouple Destiny's twitter persona from his in person persona, considering I've seen clips of Destiny being confronted on his twitter takes, and not only did he not apologize or downplay it, he doubled down on it, and so I take his word for what he thinks about people on the right. It looks like he also stopped making the campus style videos which only strengthens my notion that Destiny has completely given up on reaching out to the right, so he's probably focusing on the left/far left bridge as you mentioned.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
7m ago
But if we have evidence that secular organizations in history have been as violent, dogmatic, and successful as the Taliban, then I’m not sure how you are reasoning that the Taliban’s afterlife belief has been instrumental to some particular “benefit” of their movement. Even in regards to their suicide attacks, we have plenty of cases of suicidal acts from secular organizations, like the Japanese in WWII or among the Romans. It is not sufficient to claim that the Taliban benefits from their afterlife belief just because (1) they have such a belief & (2) their movement is highly motivated, because there’s also a dozen other things that the Taliban are doing.
Surely belief in an afterlife is at play in at least some individual cases [of charity]
In some cases, sure. But I think it’s complicated by a lot. Jews give proportionately more to charity than Catholics and usually do not possess an afterlife belief. Bekkers’ “The Pursuit of Differences in Prosociality Among Identical Twins” finds that charitable donations are mediated by frequency of church attendance, with each additional visit resulting in $20 more to charity. Something noteworthy about Jewish charity is that its mediated by perceived victimhood, such that Jews who have “experienced antisemitism” donate 10x more on average to Jewish charities. This little factoid is very insightful in explaining how prosociality functions within group dynamics generally: the perceptions of injustice as a class and a common enemy propel in-group benefitting. Not only does this make sense in light of evolutionary biology, but it also makes sense in light of early Christian history, as they emphasized their victimhood, their enemy, and their common “class”. And of course this propelled Marxism too.
Give all superfluous possessions to the poor" as such isn't really a clear Christian teaching
You will not be able to find any early Christian Father who said that one can be spiritually perfect while being wealthy. Catholicism venerates those like St Francis in part because he gave all of his wealth to the poor — and his family was quite wealthy.
first off, this does happen. There are nuns and monks and religious orders and missionaries. Those all exist.
In many cases these are career decisions decided a young age. How many rich Catholics ever decide to do this? 0.1%?
you seem to think that Scripture says "be poor and you get into heaven" which isn't the case
If giving your surplus wealth to the poor instead of buying a mansion earns you a greater reward, which every Christian thinker of the first 500 years would have told you, then we should expect reasonable self-interested afterlife-believer to do this given the cost / benefit analysis. Do you disagree that giving to the poor and abstaining from worldly pleasures provides a greater reward? Do you disagree that it makes salvation more secure?
Acts 5
This narrative line begins at the end of Act 4 (as you know, chapter divisions are not original to the text). At the end of Acts 4 we read:
Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common. There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. Thus Joseph, who was also called by the apostles Barnabas (which means son of encouragement), a Levite, a native of Cyprus,sold a field that belonged to him and brought the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet.
We learn that the true believers were of one heart and soul, did not believe their surplus was their own, and distributed to the needy from all of their profits. This same narrative continues —
But a man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property, and with his wife’s knowledge he kept back for himself some of the proceeds and brought only a part of it and laid it at the apostles’ feet.
The problem of Ananias is brought up as an exception to the Godly conduct which Luke had just relayed (think I accidentally wrote Paul in my last comment). Luke highlights the problem of Ananias and why he is being mentioned at all: “for himself”, “only a part”. It follows:
But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back for yourself part of the proceeds of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to man but to God.”When Ananias heard these words, he fell down and breathed his last.
The word “keep back” is important because it has the connotation of a moral crime in itself. This is not neutral terminology: this is the sin being called out.
ἐνοσφίσατο: may merely mean from its derivation, to set apart νόσφι. But both in LXX and N.T. it is used in a bad sense of appropriating for one’s own benefit, purloining
Now Ananias lied in doing this, but the narrative is not written in such a way that the lie is the weighty crime of Ananias. The narrative is about sharing surplus, and the emphasis is on the lack of sharing by Ananias. This section of Acts had just mentioned that none of the Christians believed that their surplus was their own. The section did not previously mention lying, neither did it mention anything about a promise or oath that the Christians made with respect to charity, neither did it mention that Ananias would have obtained some social benefit from the completed charity. You will find no saying among the early Christians that lying about how much you make deserves death. But we do find such sayings against greed among the early Christians. We can look at the Didache, one of the oldest Christian texts:
The way of death is this: […] greed […] loving worthless things […] not having mercy on the poor […] turning away from the needy […] advocates of the rich
If you have gained something through your work, give it away as a ransom for your sins. Do not hesitate to give, nor complain when you give, for you know the good paymaster of your reward. Do not turn away from anyone who is in need, but share everything with your your brother, and do not say that anything is your own. For if you all share in the heavenly things, how much more in earthly things?
Now certainly, people can believe whatever they want about God and religion. But But I think that believers of new age thought, those who believe in “the righteous rich”, should have the honor to not lie about what they believe. Why corrupt the name of Christ? Because the religion of Jesus and his first followers is very beautiful and pristine, and it’s all in plain language. If someone wants to take some aspects of Christ’s teachings and conform them to fit their own base instincts, that’s in their right, but I wish they wouldn’t claim to actually follow Christ, because that’s not accepted in the actual religion. It’s some other thing. We have the primary documents! We know what was taught and what was practiced.
Notably absent from your collection of verses: the many verses in Scripture that celebrate accumulating wealth and offer concrete advice on how to do so
Jesus completed our understanding of things and we now know not to store out treasure on earth.
FiveHourMarathon
Wawa Nationalist
10m ago
"Dark Humor" guys when the joke isn't about women or niggers.
FiveHourMarathon
Wawa Nationalist
14m ago
I think we had this fight already last summer and no one around here is really interested in relitigating the question.
TeknOShEeP
16m ago
Yes, in generally virtually none of the managed/hedge funds outperform the S&P 500, but thats not the point of most of them. Their point is to offer returns uncorrelated with how the S&P500 is doing, hence the term "hedge". In the long run, having a portion of your assests sufficiently diversified from the rest will return higher overall yields.
07mk
18m ago
When it comes to celebrating murder of people one dislikes, given that that's slightly more pleasurable and addicting than heroin, I feel like the causality is backwards. The reason the commenter doesn't do it anyway is because they've bit the bullet.
sun_the_second
could survive a COD lobby and a gay furry discord server
18m ago
According to the people on the left, their enemies already have no principles and no qualms about killing them, support for violence or not - the only reason why there's no open Holocaust on the streets is that for one reason or the other directly exterminating the left is not currently expedient for the left's enemies. So I doubt "live by the sword" will deter them.
MadMonzer
Epstein Files must have done something really awful for so many libs to want him released.
21m ago
Banks are like power and water utilities. Its not something you cut off in a modern society without very good reasons.
Plenty of people get power or water cut off for non-payment, which falls a long way short of organised crime and terrorism. Plenty of people have credit bad enough that they can only get power with a prepayment meter. The equivalent is a basic bank account which can't be overdrawn (and therefore doesn't come with a cheque book, only a debit card - with the shift to zero floor limits the number of places that debit card can't be used is now quite low). You can't run a business with a basic bank account, and you can't run a business with electricity off a prepayment meter - in both cases this is both against the rules (the social contract that says regulated businesses can't shun dirty poors only extends to consumer services, not business ones) and impractical given the lack of credit.
The vast majority of business debankings are for credit control reasons, both of the "new information means this business is no longer considered creditworthy" and of the "new information means that this business is of a type which we do not bank because we lack the special skills needed to assess its creditworthiness" types.
The level of protection the banking system offers to normies who are victims of dodgy businesses (including but by no means limited to credit card chargebacks) is only possible because the system tries to keep dodgy businesses out.
FiveHourMarathon
Wawa Nationalist
21m ago
In any case, it is hardly unsurprising for even extremely sophisticated, highly intelligent investors to be duped, seduced (platonically) by charismatic con men and adventurers for fortune, and Epstein was both.
Do we have other examples of billionaires signing over power of attorney to their finance guys?
FiveHourMarathon
Wawa Nationalist
23m ago
It's absolutely amazing to me that you quoted my question, then regurgitated the same talking points I said I wasn't convinced by. This explanation just papers over all the weird stuff by saying "IDK he was really charismatic or something."
But unless Epstein was literally the most charismatic man of all time, there's a lot of charismatic people out there, but Epstein's arrangements were extraordinary. There's no other examples I've ever seen of a billionaire handing over PoA to his finance guy, when it comes up the normal tone industry people use about it is that it's shocking and they never saw anyone else do that. Maybe Wexner was gay, but once again, we don't have any other examples of wealthy gay men getting conned at this scale by a man who, however handsome, didn't even live with Wexner and must have been much too busy to schtupp him very often.
You just pass over every extraordinary and weird aspect of Epstein's life by saying he was charismatic or gay. Ok, there are a lot of charismatic gay men out there, yet there's only one Epstein.
This reminds me a lot of Reza Aslan's biography of Jesus, Zealot, in that Aslan constantly used historical accounts of other Jewish messiahs and assumed Jesus must have been exactly the same as them. Except that, you know, Jesus was different. You can tell because his name and his likeness are everywhere, and the other Jewish messiahs are mostly only remembered in reference to Jesus.
sun_the_second
could survive a COD lobby and a gay furry discord server
24m ago
I do not think it is because being a father means nothing to them. Rather that, because Kirk is their enemy, he is worse for being a father - either he created more evil children or his innocent children were forced to live with an evil father.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
25m ago
Like I said, I'm taking bets. This isn't based on evidence, this isbthe left psy-opping itself in a desperate attempt to deflect responsibility. Notice how you had to gloss over the "catch this, fascist", and invert "bella ciao" to even make it make some semblance of sense, and they also doxxed a completely innocent man in an attempt to prove the killer donated to Trump.
The closest analogy to this is Nick Sandman, when you lot desided his smirk is somehow racist. Once it's proven beyond a shadow of a doubt he's a lefty, we'll come back to pretending none of this has ever happened, and that he's somehow not representative of the left.
haroldbkny
28m ago
That's how my wife describes her knowledge of him as well, didn't know him, did know Turning Point. I personally had never heard of Turning Point, myself.
sun_the_second
could survive a COD lobby and a gay furry discord server
34m ago
Everyone is happy to bite the bullet of being canceled for things they don't do anyway. It's called Just Being a Decent Person.
MadMonzer
Epstein Files must have done something really awful for so many libs to want him released.
38m ago
This is too dank to believe, and I don't believe it, but it is what my Twitter feed wants me to believe, and I'm sharing it on that basis.
The combination of the messages on the cartridges is best explained by Robinson being deep into gamer culture
- The sequence of arrows is a reference to Helldivers 2
- "Ciao Bella" can be a number of things, but one of them is a HoI4 meme.
- "If you read this you are gay" is general chan culture
- "Notices, bulges what's this" is an online furry culture meme which has also spread into general chan culture
Where does this end up? If Robinson was deep into HoI4 online culture, his browser history will be full of both Wehraboo and Antifa material. And if he got into the chans or the other online cesspools where large number of gamers hang out, then they are going to find all the bad stuff. So the people who want to believe that he was a leftist will find enough evidence to believe that, the people who want to believe he was a groyper will find enough evidence to believe that, and the people (like me) who want to believe that he was just a Thomas Crooks-style very online loser who shot a politician because in the current year it is more memetically badass than shooting up a school will find enough evidence to believe that. So the assassination will become a super-scissor. And, to add insult to injury, a wholesome hobby that I and many other Motteposters enjoy a lot (namely Paradox grand strategy gaming) will become tied in the mind of normies to political violence.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
43m ago
She was always an economic-left / cultural-righ type. I don't think her views changed much at all outside of coming to certain unflattering conclusions about the state of the contemporary left.
And there’s where the core of liberalism lost the plot in thinking “groups don’t have rights, only individuals do.”
This isn't even true, which is even worse. In places like Canada (also just attempted in the UK) people in the right groups get differing sentences because of their alleged group-specific troubles
But I think the algorithmic Web 2.0 sites that have swallowed the internet have turned everything into a supposedly life and death struggle. It can't just be that a group of people whose interests you care about will have lives that are about 90% as good as they might have in a counterfactual world where your political tribe got everything they wanted, you need to catastrophize about that missing 10% of well-being, and make up outrages and scandals to justify hating the opposing side.
It's zero sum because people understand that it's at least theoretically possible to get all you want by appealing to rights without convincing the other side. So there's less incentive to be sensible.
The activists like Chase Strangio have done far more damage than any online crazy like Gretchen Felker-Martin. You can ignore crazies.
ThenElection
48m ago
Isn't Bluesky federated? Can't people just leave and migrate their account to a different host if they don't like one's "no celebrating assassinations" rule?
shoe0nHead's reaction
I went and read all her tweets over the last few days. I really think the assassination genuinely shifted her political views and view of the current political climate. She seems quite distressed about the whole thing. Some of this would be because she is also a moderate influencer with a fairly large platform, who is married with kids. Many in that position (some on the left too) feel very vulnerable right now.
I think there's a large amount of people like shoe that thought a lot of the spicy takes and fascist labeling from the far left was just rhetorical larping. Now however it seems the radicals actually did drink the koolaid and see even moderate right wing influencers as goose stepping Hugo Boss enjoyers.
"Bella Ciao" is an italian antifascist song.
More options
Context Copy link