Meme Thread for Both Posting and Discussing Memes

[Skallagrim]

No, you're just making excuses. Remind me, who exactly championed things like Blue Laws and fought tooth and nail to keep them? "Leaves other men free to live by their conscience, secure in their private lives" my ass. And before you say anything - yeah, I know that's just one example - an easy one I thought of off the top of my head. Your "ideal" of everyone being a church-goer of being "cast out" if they deviate is frankly as much of a dystopia for me as the leftist one you claim is the only alternative. Fuck that and fuck your false dichotomy.

The way your respond to a measured statement with "fuck you" betrays an emotionally motived stance that I don't really care for. I already pointed out that there are plenty cases where Christian men made very sure that others would be free. "It's not always like that!" isn't an argument, because your alternative (the "secular utopia") doesn't actually exist.

Again, you're the one making excuses-- and to uphold a fantasy. "We must reject something real that's not perfect, because I prefer something perfect that's not real!"

Better men than you or I have gone down that road, and it never led anywhere good.

 

[Captain X]

The way your respond to a measured statement with "fuck you" betrays an emotionally motived stance that I don't really care for.

Dude, you came in here advocating for a system that I personally find to be every bit as dystopic as the Leftist one we're hurtling toward, then tried to brow-beat me by claiming that I was using some kind of a false dichotomy by pointing out the Religious Right wouldn't be an improvement over the Regressive Left, and once I'd pointed out that actually you were the one using a false dichotomy by claiming the only alternative to your religious theocratic utopia is the Regressive Left, you then turned around like a slimy communist going from saying that something isn't happening to saying that, of course it is, but it's a good thing, you're damn right you're going to get some emotion out of me. I'll also note that I didn't say "fuck you," I said, "fuck that (as in your ideal religious utopia) and fuck your false dichotomy." Get it right.

I already pointed out that there are plenty cases where Christian men made very sure that others would be free. "It's not always like that!" isn't an argument, because your alternative (the "secular utopia") doesn't actually exist.

And I've pointed out using a specific example of how that wasn't the case.

Again, you're the one making excuses-- and to uphold a fantasy. "We must reject something real that's not perfect, because I prefer something perfect that's not real!"

Looks like a case of projection to me.

 

[DarthOne]

Except that isn't the argument I'm making. It's pretty obvious that your argument that it isn't "normal", or what others might claim is "unnatural" is completely false and all I've done is show that by example. I'm not the one making any kind of appeal here, you are.

Yes it is. I never said anything about animals or whatever else. You brought them up as a way of proving that homosexuality is ‘normal’ or ‘natural’, even if you didn’t use the last word yourself, because animals do it.

 

[Bassoe]

The difference being: when traditionally-minded, Christian men have been in charge, they have on several occasions gone to great lengths to establish government that is constrained and leaves other men free to live by their conscience, secure in their private lives.

When the oh-so-tolerant secularists have been in charge, they have never once created anything other than a finger-wagging regime that micro-manages the lives of others.

That might just have been because of the differences in technologies available to them rather than any moral object to surveillance states. Potentially the theocratic bullies of a generation ago would’ve gladly built an ideology-enforcing digital panopticon like their modern woke counterpart, had the tech to do so been invented in their era.

 

[DarthOne]

That might just have been because of the differences in technologies available to them rather than any moral object to surveillance states. Potentially the theocratic bullies of a generation ago would’ve gladly built an ideology-enforcing digital panopticon like their modern woke counterpart, had the tech to do so been invented in their era.

And maybe they wouldn’t have. We’ll never know.

 

[Skallagrim]

Dude, you came in here advocating for a system that I personally find to be every bit as dystopic as the Leftist one we're hurtling toward, then tried to brow-beat me by claiming that I was using some kind of a false dichotomy by pointing out the Religious Right wouldn't be an improvement over the Regressive Left, and once I'd pointed out that actually you were the one using a false dichotomy by claiming the only alternative to your religious theocratic utopia is the Regressive Left, you then turned around like a slimy communist going from saying that something isn't happening to saying that, of course it is, but it's a good thing, you're damn right you're going to get some emotion out of me. I'll also note that I didn't say "fuck you," I said, "fuck that (as in your ideal religious utopia) and fuck your false dichotomy." Get it right.

If you consider "society is conservative, but the government leaves people alone" to be "just as dystopic as a leftist regime", I think the issue here lies with your viewpoints.

The only thing you've concretely objected to when it came to my view is that you apparently think it's bad that religious communities (e.g. churches) would be able to kick out people whose values don't line up with those of the church in question. What's next, are you going to tell me to "bake the cake, bigot?" -- because, yeah, that's the kind of secularist bullshit that I'm trying to get rid of. If that's what you'd prefer to keep, then we're not going to agree.

And I've pointed out using a specific example of how that wasn't the case.

You've demonstrated that men are imperfect, and that ideals are hard. I never claimed conservatives are perfect. I said that we can see clear evidence that conservatives have, time and again, gone out of their way to establish freedom from state interference.

Could you give me a few examples of secularist regimes that actually refrained from being intolerant busy-bodies? Because that's what you say you want. If you have so mch evidence that your idea is better and more realistic, I'm sure you have great scores of historic examples of all this.

Looks like a case of projection to me.

Your response looks like a case of not-an-argument to me.


------------------------------

That might just have been because of the differences in technologies available to them rather than any moral object to surveillance states. Potentially the theocratic bullies of a generation ago would’ve gladly built an ideology-enforcing digital panopticon like their modern woke counterpart, had the tech to do so been invented in their era.

And maybe they wouldn’t have. We’ll never know.

What @DarthOne said. That's the crux. The great myth of the so-much-better secularism exclusively relies on imagination and hypotheticals. It's not actually real. If your strongest argument is "I bet that if they had our power, the other guys would be just as abusive as we are"... then something's gone very wrong!

 

[DarthOne]

 

[Bassoe]

We’ll never know

If all the theories that they’ll retake power getting tossed around in this very thread are correct, we’ll find out.

 

[DarthOne]

If all the theories that they’ll retake power getting tossed around in this very thread are correct, we’ll find out.

There’s a difference between ‘Christian’ and what most of us want and ‘crazy totalitarian neo-crusaders’.

 

[Bigking321]

Nah, nah.

If the religious right gets any power they will be as bad or worse than leftists now.

Cracking down on crime and degeneracy. Following the rule of law. Promoting personal freedom and responsibility. Believing in charity and helping their fellow man. Denouncing those that abuse their power and position. Encouraging strong families and communities.

It will be horrible. I'm kept up at night worrying about it. I'll keep what we have now thanks. As long as they keep those monstrous Christians away.








/s

 

[Bacle]

For everyone who thinks that the 'religious right' will tolerate other faiths and ideologies existing in their desired utopia, I refer them back to the many religious wars in Europe that the Founding Father's were keenly aware of, of the continued tension between the Irish and the Brits that stems from both differences in faith (Catholic vs Anglican) as well as the invaison of Ireland by the Brits a long time back, the Shia-Sunni split (have fun deal with that one, theocrats), and the people who seem to want to throw any 'degens' out of helicopters Pinochet-style.

I think it really is the Pinochet worship by some on the Right that really gives it all away, and puts a lie to the idea that 'removing secularism/removing liberalism' would actually result in a better society.

 

[Cherico]

For everyone who thinks that the 'religious right' will tolerate other faiths and ideologies existing in their desired utopia, I refer them back to the many religious wars in Europe that the Founding Father's were keenly aware of, of the continued tension between the Irish and the Brits that stems from both differences in faith (Catholic vs Anglican) as well as the invaison of Ireland by the Brits a long time back, the Shia-Sunni split (have fun deal with that one, theocrats), and the people who seem to want to throw any 'degens' out of helicopters Pinochet-style.

I think it really is the Pinochet worship by some on the Right that really gives it all away, and puts a lie to the idea that 'removing secularism/removing liberalism' would actually result in a better society.

Pinochect wasn't an ideal outcome but he stepped down peacefully and as we saw from venusula he was better then being yet another case of 'that wasn't real socialism'.

You seem to think we can get an ideal outcome.

That isn't happening life is a series of trade offs and no matter what you do there is going to be some level of suck. Its just the nature of the beast. And right now the left is pretty much destroying our civilization with their hedonism and delusion and its not even fun hedonism anymore its just kind of sad.

 

[Bacle]

Pinochect wasn't an ideal outcome but he stepped down peacefully and as we saw from venusula he was better then being yet another case of 'that wasn't real socialism'.

You seem to think we can get an ideal outcome.

That isn't happening life is a series of trade offs and no matter what you do there is going to be some level of suck. Its just the nature of the beast. And right now the left is pretty much destroying our civilization with their hedonism and delusion and its not even fun hedonism anymore its just kind of sad.

I do not expect ideal outcomes, I expect the Right to do more gauging of what the US public actually will stand for, what mistakes others have made dealing with wokies effective, and also not fall for the same traps Trump and Pinochet types keep falling for; that Right Wing Authortarianism is more appealing to much of the public than a...Sweden or Aussie style top-down, post-US Constitutional set-up.

Pinochet is not someone to emulate, even if he was the lesser evil in that instance.

If we want to salvage what is left of our nation and Constitution before it is too late, then we need more, much more, than the single power of a POTUS, and much, much more than just a few bastions like Florida or Utah.

The second Texas turns blue on any level Federally is the second the GOP no longer has any real paths to power Federally until/unless they can do something like flip Cali or NY.

Pining for and planning for a Pinochet level backlash against the Left only helps validate the Left's lies about the Right, and makes it easier to pull BS like Jan 6th and have the media lies be believed.

I understand the impulse behind the desire for/expectation of Pinochet-level backlash in the future, however I also understand that the Right will never be allowed to reach that level of power in the US, simply because the US public has already been socially inculcated to see through the...hopeful aspirations/dire warnings of wannabe-theocrats.

I believe in the divine, but the actions/desires of the wannabe-theocrats in the US/GOP is a large part of why I won't put an R next to my name.

 

[Urabrask Revealed]

I believe in the divine, but the actions/desires of the wannabe-theocrats in the US/GOP is a large part of why I won't put an R next to my name.

WE are not going to change our goals to appeal to your "Democrat, but ten years ago" values. YOU have to change. Otherwise, you can crawl back to the demorats and beg them to return to sanity. I doubt you will succeed tho.

 

[Simonbob]

-Snip-

I don't think you putting a R next to your name will matter in the slightest. Parties? Meh.

But, I would dearly like to see things get better without such a massive swing. I just don't think it'll happen.


I can honestly say, you have a prefered view of of the future that's pretty good. I gave you a like, because, as usual, I agree with much of what you have to say.


I do have to make a point though. Australia is up to 1/3 of the workers working directly for the Govenment at one level or another, and going up. Tax is high, inflation has been at least 7% every year, and going up. There are over 15% of the potential working population who are on some sort of welfare, and over 10% of that 15%? That's permanent.


Australia is in very bad shape, and getting worse. Don't look to us for a path forward. We don't have anything.

 

[Captain X]

Yes it is. I never said anything about animals or whatever else. You brought them up as a way of proving that homosexuality is ‘normal’ or ‘natural’, even if you didn’t use the last word yourself, because animals do it.

I used an example to prove my point. This does not in any way translate into advocating for anything else animals do. That's just a bullshit arguments that Leftists like to use, too. Like it or not, homosexuality and bisexuality are "normal" in the sense that they have always existed in both humans and other animals, no matter what your religion might have to say on the matter.

If you consider "society is conservative, but the government leaves people alone" to be "just as dystopic as a leftist regime", I think the issue here lies with your viewpoints.

The issue is that I caught the end of the '80s/'90s moral crusading and moral panics and lived through the early 2000s. I've seen for myself what the Religious Right is, and yes, they very much are every bit as horrible as the Regressive Left. That was the entire reason I started hating on the Regressive Left to begin with, actually, because I saw the same kinds of attitudes and actions from them, and that was well before the current bullshit.

The only thing you've concretely objected to when it came to my view is that you apparently think it's bad that religious communities (e.g. churches) would be able to kick out people whose values don't line up with those of the church in question. What's next, are you going to tell me to "bake the cake, bigot?" -- because, yeah, that's the kind of secularist bullshit that I'm trying to get rid of. If that's what you'd prefer to keep, then we're not going to agree.

No, what I object to is the idea that everyone would be expected to be church-going to begin with. Also, if you're going to argue, at least try and pay attention to the things I actually say:

My ideal would be for a limited, secularist government that leaves people alone unless they represent an actual threat to other people, and does not pick any kind of favorites when it comes to religion.

Oh, look, I advocated for exactly the opposite, how about that? Oh, right, your false dichotomy can't handle the existence of anything other than the two extremes.

You've demonstrated that men are imperfect, and that ideals are hard. I never claimed conservatives are perfect. I said that we can see clear evidence that conservatives have, time and again, gone out of their way to establish freedom from state interference.

And I showed that you are arguing from a false premise. "Conservatives" fought hard against repealing blue laws, and a lot of them still whine about them being repealed. There is literally nothing keeping them from observing their own day of rest, so what the real problem is has to do with forcing it on everyone else as well.

Could you give me a few examples of secularist regimes that actually refrained from being intolerant busy-bodies? Because that's what you say you want. If you have so mch evidence that your idea is better and more realistic, I'm sure you have great scores of historic examples of all this.

I stated what my ideal was. You have been the one trying to say your ideal actually existed, and all I've done is prove that wasn't the case. You are looking back through tinted glasses and then basing an argument off of it. And you only really started doing that after you stated what your ideal was, and I disagreed with it and stated what my ideal was. So I have a better idea - how about you explain how my ideal represents a dystopia to you the way yours does for me? A small government that respects religion but is secular and won't force religion on others? The horror...

Your response looks like a case of not-an-argument to me.

It is. Because all you're doing is looking in a mirror and pretending the reflection you see there is me.

What @DarthOne said. That's the crux. The great myth of the so-much-better secularism exclusively relies on imagination and hypotheticals. It's not actually real. If your strongest argument is "I bet that if they had our power, the other guys would be just as abusive as we are"... then something's gone very wrong!

The thing is, we actually have seen what the Religious Right does when they do have power. I don't have to make any kind of hypotheticals - all I have to do is look back at history, and not even all that far back at that. Also, they'll gladly tell you what they'd do with power if you ask them, and even if you don't, really, kind of like vegans going around telling everyone how they're vegan.

Nah, nah.

If the religious right gets any power they will be as bad or worse than leftists now.

Cracking down on crime and degeneracy. Following the rule of law. Promoting personal freedom and responsibility. Believing in charity and helping their fellow man. Denouncing those that abuse their power and position. Encouraging strong families and communities.

It will be horrible. I'm kept up at night worrying about it. I'll keep what we have now thanks. As long as they keep those monstrous Christians away.

What a wonderful fantasy world.

 

[Bacle]

WE are not going to change our goals to appeal to your "Democrat, but ten years ago" values. YOU have to change. Otherwise, you can crawl back to the demorats and beg them to return to sanity. I doubt you will succeed tho.

You're a Kraut, your opinion on this doesn't matter in any material fashion, just like the Latin Americans who keep trying to egg on the Far-Right because they lost at home.

You have no say in US politics and never will.

I don't think you putting a R next to your name will matter in the slightest. Parties? Meh.

But, I would dearly like to see things get better without such a massive swing. I just don't think it'll happen.


I can honestly say, you have a prefered view of of the future that's pretty good. I gave you a like, because, as usual, I agree with much of what you have to say.


I do have to make a point though. Australia is up to 1/3 of the workers working directly for the Govenment at one level or another, and going up. Tax is high, inflation has been at least 7% every year, and going up. There are over 15% of the potential working population who are on some sort of welfare, and over 10% of that 15%? That's permanent.


Australia is in very bad shape, and getting worse. Don't look to us for a path forward. We don't have anything.

Oh, I know Aussies and Swedes both have issues; I did not reference them as 'good' ways forward.

I only meant that much of the hyper/neo-liberal and Leftist parts of the US society would be fine with trading the problems the Swedes and Aussies have of limited freedoms and no Bill of Rights/US Constitutional protections, if it meant removing the Trad-Right/Religious Right from the ability to gain any meaningful power ever again in the long run.

 

[Simonbob]

Oh, I know Aussies and Swedes both have issues; I did not reference them as 'good' ways forward.

I only meant that much of the hyper/neo-liberal and Leftist parts of the US society would be fine with trading the problems the Swedes and Aussies have of limited freedoms and no Bill of Rights/US Constitutional protections, if it meant removing the Trad-Right/Religious Right from the ability to gain any meaningful power ever again in the long run.

They likely would.

They'd miss the point in the process, though. The written laws only matter if people are willing to fight for them. If the culture doesn't care, the law doesn't matter.


US gun laws are a classic example of that. "Shall Not Be Infringed" is not exactly subtle. Yet, they are. (I'm not commenting on the right or wrong of it, just pointing it out.)



So, if the culture get's seriously Theocratic, as a number of us think it will as a reaction to the depths the loonie Left are diving into, things are going to get bad, as you've noted.



But, it's likely to be decades in the future. What was the line? "They'll try the right thing- Only after trying every wrong thing first." That includes going FULL DEUS VULT as part of the wrong thing.





Thread Tax.

 

[Bacle]

They likely would.

They'd miss the point in the process, though. The written laws only matter if people are willing to fight for them. If the culture doesn't care, the law doesn't matter.


US gun laws are a classic example of that. "Shall Not Be Infringed" is not exactly subtle. Yet, they are. (I'm not commenting on the right or wrong of it, just pointing it out.)



So, if the culture get's seriously Theocratic, as a number of us think it will as a reaction to the depths the loonie Left are diving into, things are going to get bad, as you've noted.



But, it's likely to be decades in the future. What was the line? "They'll try the right thing- Only after trying every wrong thing first." That includes going FULL DEUS VULT as part of the wrong thing.





Thread Tax.

That crusader is fucking fool, Atago is better than any crusade; crusades don't have naval artillery and Long Lance torps as well as rocking tits.

 

[Blasterbot]

well now I just want to start up Rule The Waves 3 and play Italy for a while. reclaiming Constantinople with a superior navy sounds great.

edit. nevermind cannot bully the turks for it. could claim greece and pretend. but no bullying turks in the 1890s. very sad.

edit the 2nd UA dreadnaughts allows it. no carriers but we will retake the holy lands from the turks with cannons. fitting considering how they took Constantinople.