Which characters in this movie are best labeled as the conservatives?
Remember how in “the Wizard of Oz” all the heroes were pursuing some characteristic they craved? The scarecrow wanted a brain, the tin man a heart, the lion guts, and Dorothy….was just a sweet girl who already had those things, and ultimately just wanted to go home. Well, I’ve realized that a good lens for differentiating liberals and conservatives (traditionalists) is to look at the traits they extol as virtues which they think make you deserving of being their friend.
Liberals respect people who either have a heart or a brain. (Democrats will like you if you more try to cultivate those traits.) Conservatives (and I mean Republicans) instead respect people who have either power or wealth (which is just a quantifiable and visible indicator of power.) They love bravado too, and select pugnacious speakers who can beat down their opponents from a position of power, rather than any soft-spoken academic who calls for civil discussion and inclusion of marginalized points of view.
I think Republicans are shallow, and whenever I learn about the silly madness of the South’s sad racist history, that image of hidebound conservatives is cemented in my mind. Perhaps that’s why I’ve always been drawn toward liberalism even though I didn’t always see the distinction in the world. The Wizard of Oz appears to me as a fairy tale by a crew of progressives–(need I mention that the film’s dance choreographer was gay?) Continue reading Which characters were the conservatives in “The Wizard of Oz?” (Hint: liberals love brains and hearts)
First of all I’d like to share this. This is old but it’s relevant and still a good summary of the dishonest smear attacks regressive leftists have been using against the New atheists.
Anyway the SPLC has just admitted guilt and settled the lawsuit by giving 3.7 million to the progressive Muslim reformer who they defamed for being Islamphobic:
All progressive movements are essentially critique movements that attempt to push for change. For instance, a Professor that thinks of herself as a Marxist will be a master at finding systemic problems in our economic, political and social systems. She’ll be able to explain why exactly the last recession happened, who it primarily effected and why it will happen again. What she’ll have a hard time doing is explaining what to do about it, perhaps by trying to organize her colleagues in her union, or maybe by protesting. Progressives are well versed at finding problems, but very bad at finding solutions, or at least good solutions that actually change things on a systematic level. The problem is that those problems have become systemic only because there is really no easy, better alternative.
It makes more sense if you look at it like that. Progressives tend to be young and naive, so when they’re taught about some of our systemic problems having to do with race and gender at the moment, they immediately want to go out and try and “fix” those problems, not really understanding that all they’re armed with is a critique and no good tools to actually change anything. If it was easy to fix our natural tendency to favor the our own group and feel xenophobic towards outsiders, then racism would have already have been fixed long ago. Lots of groups are working hard to do what they can though, doing things like opening up women’s shelters and food shelves. Doing good takes a lot of effort like that.
The SPLC is a special case though, I think. They represent progressive movements in the same way that the Ku Klux Klan represents President Trump supporters. From what I’ve read in the sources in your main post, it looks like more morally sound progressives are vocally distancing themselves from the SPLC.
Though I still like how progressives can ackowledge certain problems whereas many conservatives are are unable or unwilling to see the problems exist or when their own actions are part of a system of actions that harm others, (and they aren’t merely compromising or being pragmatic. ) Right now I am listening to an audio book by Steven Linker titled Enlightenment Now and he seems to be a neoliberal pragmatist. It’s hard to get the details though when it’s an audio book since dense facts often wash over you when it’s hard to rewind.
Too many stars:
Darkmatter2525 articulated the argumentum ad absurdum about there being too many stars to believe our planet or Israel is the special center of it all better than I had thought of. He did so by drawing from teleology (Aristotle’s four causes). We totally live in a universe that requires no gods to function, but all religions and their deities seem to have been created to meet the ends of humans. For power and influence over others, and tithes from their fellow man. Occam’s razor says the simplest explanation tends to be the most likely one, and a universe that is not run by any of the gods mankind believes in makes more sense.
Totally wish this video existed sooner. I embarrassed myself by presenting the argument to my philosophy professor after I developed it for feedback, without realizing it was a fairly common argument apostates develop. I still do not know the name of the argument but it is one of the strongest ones. It has become my favorite argument because it is rooted in empirical evidence of the scale of the universe, and logic, and is all encompassing. (I prefer it even over the problem of evil.)
My Mastery of Religion:
I’ll remember it for the rest of my life and never believe any Earthly religion again as a result. There is no need to study religion further for the truth about Gods since I have thoroughly collected the evidence they are all bullshit. The only reason to study religion is to understand sociology, or how religion changes the behavior of people, and how delusions changed history. It also helps to develop critical thinking which is essential in philosophy, except that there are better questions that have not been decisively solved. (Probably well over 70% of philosophers turn Atheist.) Currently I can think more objectively than anyone in the family, and in this niche I know many more facts.
Continue reading Too many stars – the ultimate argument against all religions on Earth
Someday a Christian might have a dream where a demon that looks like you calls you the demon, and tries to exorcise you with an incantation, “in the name of Christ.”
I always laugh when a Christians take their dreams seriously as the work of malevolent powers. Many say they had sleep paralysis because of a demon, or they met a demon in a dream, and prayed for it to go away; however all things are possible in a dream. I might be able to make an interesting scenario, since I have been able to lucid dream.
Lucid dreams (明晰夢)
A lucid dream is simply a dream where you are aware you are dreaming, and you can control it to some extent. Usually when I realize I’m dreaming, the dream doesn’t last much longer than a minute before I wake up, (my reasoning is that awareness continually stimulates the brain until it wakes up.) I’ve also sometimes slipped into another dream, and lost control of the dream, and the awareness that I was dreaming, which seems to be the only way for me to keep dreaming. Other people have learned to lucid dream much better than I can, and can go for five minutes or more, or to have multiple lucid dreams in a night.
What separates this from a daydream, is it feels much more vivid, and your imagination conjures images, events, settings and characters with less effort. It’s a lot like playing a hyperrealistic video game, because whenever you look at something, your brain tells yourself you’re looking at a real object. Continue reading lucid dreams
Which religion influenced the others more? How many Christians, Jews or Muslims know that Zoroastrianism predated all of them, and is the source of hell and the good vs evil dynamic?
Properties of Zoroastrianism:
>Good god vs evil spirit
>son of god born of a virgin will purify the world
>burning fiery river to perish the wicked, (or hell), eternity with god for the good
>30 year old prophet of God sees an angel in a river, and then travels around preaching reform
>He also heals
Zoroastrianism is 1,000 years older than Christianity. It’s hard to say just how old the scriptures that were orally passed down are, and the rituals and foundations are even older.
Continue reading Christ Stole Theology From Zoroastrianism