Meme Thread for Both Posting and Discussing Memes

[Zyobot]

Other people might have tossed the “theocrat” label around, but personally, I never accused anyone here of wanting a Christian theocracy, unless they outright advocated for a state church or religiously motivated laws.

Still think they misunderstand (and maybe dishonestly read) the Bible to confirm their own hidebound biases, unfortunately. Not that I put much stock in the Bible or Biblical literalism, anyway, since I no longer consider myself Christian and don’t care for organized religion in general.

That said… I fear @Skallagrim is all too correct about how we’re living through something akin to Worldwide Weimar, the relentless debauchery of which — combined with preexisting grievances going unaddressed for years and years, and helping to reignite old hatreds along the way — will be met with blowback. Don’t expect The Next Hitler to be a direct expy of the original, of course, but a “Neo-Crusader” terrorist leader who proudly embodies the whole “Fire and brimstone!” caricature haunting modern Wokesters’ fever dreams?

More than possible, I’d say, precisely because they’d be a reaction to decades of Leftist rot and the Establishment’s stodgy aversion to Trump and his moderate reforms when they could still be implemented. By then, I think American Pinochet (Heck, even American Saddam Hussein!) will be the least terrible of some thuggish options; even though they’d be right bastards, they’d still be much preferable to the Millenarian, “Neo-Crusader” version of Hitler, Pol Pot, or Jim Jones taking the reigns instead. And that, more or less, is how I see this whole thing ending.

 

[Morphic Tide]

Why do we need a "secular reasoning"?

So that arguements about theological minutia don't turn into bloodbaths and systemic legal headaches  again. As I bring up frequently, the reason that the US Federal government is able to declare gay marriage legal is entirely because of churches refusing to accept marriages by clergy of other denominations.

The intent with how the US handles separation of church and state is that law be handled deistically if not purely secularly, because religious schisms were baked into the backbone of our culture.

 

[Bigking321]

The separation between church and state was intended to protect religion from government influence but it's been twisted into the complete opposite.

Now it's used to erase traditional religious influence from as much as they can while promoting religions more acceptable to the radical left, like atheism, communism, environmentalism, intersectionalism, and other woke nonsense.

 

[LordsFire]

So that arguements about theological minutia don't turn into bloodbaths and systemic legal headaches  again. As I bring up frequently, the reason that the US Federal government is able to declare gay marriage legal is entirely because of churches refusing to accept marriages by clergy of other denominations.

The intent with how the US handles separation of church and state is that law be handled deistically if not purely secularly, because religious schisms were baked into the backbone of our culture.

And you think secular arguments about theological minutia are any less bloody?

Every time an atheist nation purges people for not being communist enough, etc, you have the exact same root of the issue, except without any kind of moral restraint whatsoever.

It isn't hard to see which bloodbaths were larger or more horrific, either.

 

[mrttao]

As such, I don't take @mrttao's reference to leftists calling anything and everything a "nazi" as applying to me. I'm talking about, quite literally.... the Nazis.

The issue is that this does not clearly tell me what you mean.
Everyone has a different definition of the word nazi and thus it cannot be used in clear communication.

Do you mean racists?

Do you mean open genocide?

Do you mean so opposed to genocide that if a genocide occurs it would be done in the utmost secrecy and hidden from the general public?

Do you mean nationalists?

Do you mean socialists?

Which type of socialist? As hitler rejected the communist definition and insisted that socialist means populist. (although it still had borrowed some things from communism...)

Do you mean a dictatorship?

Do you mean a republic?

If I talk to an NPC I just get told nazies are evil demons who are willing to suffer just for the sake of their evil. And also that I am apparently a nazi jew because I am opposed to castrating little boys.

If I talk to anyone who tried to do some independent research on the subject I will get drastically different answers due to all the fake history floating about.

 

[Rocinante]

You guys are boring

Here have something funny:

Someone started a thread with "iconic moments of Donald Trump through history" and it's the best thing on the internet today 👌🤣

This is amazing.

notthebee.com

 

[mrttao]

You guys are boring

Here have something funny:

Someone started a thread with "iconic moments of Donald Trump through history" and it's the best thing on the internet today 👌🤣

This is amazing.

notthebee.com

Future historians are going to be so confused

 

[Skallagrim]

The issue is that this does not clearly tell me what you mean.
Everyone has a different definition of the word nazi and thus it cannot be used in clear communication.

Do you mean racists?

Do you mean open genocide?

Do you mean so opposed to genocide that if a genocide occurs it would be done in the utmost secrecy and hidden from the general public?

Do you mean nationalists?

Do you mean socialists?

Which type of socialist? As hitler rejected the communist definition and insisted that socialist means populist. (although it still had borrowed some things from communism...)

Do you mean a dictatorship?

Do you mean a republic?

If I talk to an NPC I just get told nazies are evil demons who are willing to suffer just for the sake of their evil. And also that I am apparently a nazi jew because I am opposed to castrating little boys.

If I talk to anyone who tried to do some independent research on the subject I will get drastically different answers due to all the fake history floating about.

Don't play retarded word games with me. I've never used the insane "everybody I don't like is Hitler" canard, so don't talk to me as if I've done that here.

If you genuinely don't know what the National Socialists ("Nazis") were, and expect me to explain it to you... buy a history book instead. Or you can pay me for tutoring. My rate is now 100,- euros an hour, with a minimum course of 10 hours. I'm not teaching you basic history for free.

 

[Cherico]

Future historians are going to be so confused

I worked in the field for years current historians are confused and you wouldn't belive the amount of alcohalism in the feild, and every archelogical dig site has some kind of still to make booze.

 

[Cherico]

Don't play retarded word games with me. I've never used the insane "everybody I don't like is Hitler" canard, so don't talk to me as if I've done that here.

If you genuinely don't know what the National Socialists ("Nazis") were, and expect me to explain it to you... buy a history book instead. Or you can pay me for tutoring. My rate is now 100,- euros an hour, with a minimum course of 10 hours. I'm not teaching you basic history for free.

Ok, I'm just going to say this.

The average cost of a college class in the us is 456 dollars an hour, at a private 'non profit' the price per hour is 1200 dollars an hour, and at a community college its 120 dollars an hour. This price is a relative bargan and if you really want to learn history at an affordable level you really should jump on this chance.

 

[Morphic Tide]

And you think secular arguments about theological minutia are any less bloody?

They're certainly less common when society starts asking questions before actually breaking down, and take longer into breaking down to start seeing large-scale violence. Murderous purges are rather standard for religious upheavals as seen with Rome's treatment of Christians and the Reformation, whereas today's "Great Awokening" has more been people outside of itself like the opportunistic rioters, drug cartels, and Islamists taking advantage than members.

Every time an atheist nation purges people for not being communist enough, etc, you have the exact same root of the issue, except without any kind of moral restraint whatsoever.

Do tell what happened when the Crusaders finally took Jerusalem. Historically, it has been incredibly easy to get a military force of any variety one wishes to name to wipe its ass with nearly every single precept of the Christian faith so long as you convince them the enemy brutalized by doing so are disinterested in converting to "The One True Way". Hence the "Let God Sort Them Out" phrase, for all that was interjected by a third party rather than a legitimate quote.

It isn't hard to see which bloodbaths were larger or more horrific, either.

Fun fact: The higher estimates of the 30 Years' War constitute a higher portion of the contemporary population of Europe, as a static figure counting the non-participants, than Mao's Great Leap Forward was of China's population, and even manages to be worth comparing to the World Wars over a similar period. So incredibly much of the increase in scale is just "Society Is Bigger And More Connected". More people to kill, more access to killing them, and more dependencies that need juggled, so you can get far more people dead with no increase in brutality or incompetence.

 

[King Arts]

Don't play retarded word games with me. I've never used the insane "everybody I don't like is Hitler" canard, so don't talk to me as if I've done that here.

If you genuinely don't know what the National Socialists ("Nazis") were, and expect me to explain it to you... buy a history book instead. Or you can pay me for tutoring. My rate is now 100,- euros an hour, with a minimum course of 10 hours. I'm not teaching you basic history for free.

So you aren’t going to define what you mean when you say Nazi? Because the historical definition of the German national socialist workers party is impossible to exist now. Nazis only existed from 1933 to 1945.
The definition I use so that modern Nazis can exist is hatred of a race like Jews or slave or blacks for example because they are part of that race, especially if you aren’t in a current war with them. Also the reason for the animosity must be race, if you dislike them or another group because of religion you are not a Nazi.

 

[mrttao]

Don't play retarded word games with me. I've never used the insane "everybody I don't like is Hitler" canard, so don't talk to me as if I've done that here.

I never accused you of doing so.
Nor did I accuse you of being a leftist.
In fact, I explained that leftists are the only ones who can use the word and I would instantly know what they actually mean (evil baby eating (no wait, protecting) demon)

As you are clearly not a leftist, I genuinely have no idea what you are saying and I am genuinely trying figure out what you are saying in an otherwise well written post.

If you genuinely don't know what the National Socialists ("Nazis") were, and expect me to explain it to you... buy a history book instead. Or you can pay me for tutoring. My rate is now 100,- euros an hour, with a minimum course of 10 hours. I'm not teaching you basic history for free.

I believe I have a fairly good understanding of what the actual nazies in germany 1930s were.
But you were talking about a hypothetical rise of nazism in the USA right now
And I genuinely don't know what YOU are trying to say by that.

As for history books... yea, I read those.
The ones assigned to me in school told me nazies made human skin lampshades, washed themselves with human soap, and used human hair pillows and blankets because they were literally demons.
So... which history books are YOU referring to when you say that we will see a rise nazies in the USA is my question.

This is not an attack on you. I am not accusing you of anything. I don't think you are a lefty, I don't think you are crazy, I don't think you believe the above nonsense. I just have no idea what you are trying to communicate because the term nazi is shit.

 

[LordsFire]

They're certainly less common when society starts asking questions before actually breaking down, and take longer into breaking down to start seeing large-scale violence. Murderous purges are rather standard for religious upheavals as seen with Rome's treatment of Christians and the Reformation, whereas today's "Great Awokening" has more been people outside of itself like the opportunistic rioters, drug cartels, and Islamists taking advantage than members.


Do tell what happened when the Crusaders finally took Jerusalem. Historically, it has been incredibly easy to get a military force of any variety one wishes to name to wipe its ass with nearly every single precept of the Christian faith so long as you convince them the enemy brutalized by doing so are disinterested in converting to "The One True Way". Hence the "Let God Sort Them Out" phrase, for all that was interjected by a third party rather than a legitimate quote.


Fun fact: The higher estimates of the 30 Years' War constitute a higher portion of the contemporary population of Europe, as a static figure counting the non-participants, than Mao's Great Leap Forward was of China's population, and even manages to be worth comparing to the World Wars over a similar period. So incredibly much of the increase in scale is just "Society Is Bigger And More Connected". More people to kill, more access to killing them, and more dependencies that need juggled, so you can get far more people dead with no increase in brutality or incompetence.

Even here, you're deliberately looking at things with rose-tinted lenses for the secularists.

How long was the 30 years war? How long was WW I? WW II? How many years did the Mao-induced famines take to kill tens of millions of people? If you want to talk about 'comparative to the population of the time,' then you should also be accounting for how much time it took for that proportion of people to be killed.

Further, in the time period of the majority of losses was due to famine and disease, not deliberate slaughter. There was very much a matter of 'technology and logistics are still primitive enough that a lot more people are dying than we intended.

The secular barbarism of the 20th century on the other hand, was entirely intentional, and more advanced technology was used to deliberately kill more people.

It is still very clear which ideology is more destructive, and unsurprisingly, it's the one that deliberately encourages man's darker impulses, rather than teaches rejecting them.

 

[Zyobot]

Anyway, if we could please port the religious debate over to another thread:

 

[Morphic Tide]

How long was the 30 years war? How long was WW I? WW II?

Between the two World Wars, you have a similar period to the 30 Years' War. That's what I was referring to.

Further, in the time period of the majority of losses was due to famine and disease, not deliberate slaughter.

The World Wars still had around a third of the death total being due to famine and disease despite (actually often because of) the outright carpet-bombing going around.

The secular barbarism of the 20th century on the other hand, was entirely intentional, and more advanced technology was used to deliberately kill more people.

The point being made is that the same amount of brutality gets more people killed for ability to do so. It takes considerably lesser contempt for the lives of others to pilot a heavy bomber that proceeds to kill thousands in one mission than to cut down just five men with a sword in person. It takes considerably lesser concern about the distorted ideals to rack up a 20:1 K ratio when you're crewing a heavy machine gun than when you have to run them down on horseback.

The basic way that conflict works in the modern era trivializes mass casualties. It is not because of the ideology, it is because of the tools any ideology has making it far easier for anyone to kill numerous people. Because it's not personal anymore, the people you kill can easily be a vague abstract to you. Do you genuinely think for an instant that the Crusaders would not have wiped out most of the Middle East had they the weaponry of the First World War, let alone the inverse?

 

[Zyobot]

Posting another one, because y'all can't take the ongoing religious debate elsewhere:

 

[Captain X]

Person A: "X is sinful"
Person B: "Why do you think that?"
Person A: "Because that is what the Bible teaches."
Person B: "Waaah you want to make a theocracy and force everyone to follow your beliefs!"

Moar like:

Person A: "X is sinful."
Person B: "Why do you think that?"
Person A: "Because that is what the Bible teaches."
Person B: "Well I'm not religious and I disagree."
Person A:

 

[King Arts]

Moar like:

Person A: "X is sinful."
Person B: "Why do you think that?"
Person A: "Because that is what the Bible teaches."
Person B: "Well I'm not religious and I disagree."
Person A:

Then why did you ask why we think that? If you aren’t religious then nothing is a sin.

 

[Captain X]

Then why did you ask why we think that? If you aren’t religious then nothing is a sin.

Because we're giving you a chance to convince us using some actual sound logic. It's your own fault if you illustrate that you can't even think for yourself by basically just pointing at the Bible. "Why do we need a secular argument?" Because if you're going to convince someone who doesn't share your religion, you need one to even attempt to convince them that you aren't just trying to force your religion on everyone else. And if you're going to try to make something into law, you damn well better have secular arguments for it.

And the fact that people are still arguing about this shows that my version of that discussion is pretty accurate.