Safety of any place is relative and variable with technology.
"TradWives" Triggering Unhappy Feminists
- Thread starter Jormungandr
- Start date
Yes. And democracy was an attempt to replace (a) with vote instead of violence. It's had some success, some failures. Also, (b) is still viable in the US. You can't go to a brand new place, but you can go to a place that agrees with you. Hence me moving out of taxachusetts.
mrttao
Well-known member
That is a strawman. He never said we fell from a utopia. Falling from average world with both good and bad to hell on earth is still falling.
>> While walking I fell on the ground and broke my hip
> You are delusional, you never flew in outer space to begin with, so how can you fall? So many delusional people thinking they can fly.
What I meant was that they usually moved to unoccupied or unclaimed land to build their own societies (especially in Ancient Times or when America was still half-wilderness), but I do agree people still do the same when moving cities/areas (especially with the growing Left/Right divide) to live in areas more in line with their values -- the problem with that is that they're still in America (thus still under American law or culture that they'd object to as opposed to creating their own), as an example, than somewhere completely new.
Unless we as a civilization move into "Wild Outer Space Frontier West" territory like in sci-fi media where there are entire planets to claim across the Milky Way, there's nowhere on Earth anymore where you can just move into an unoccupied area and build your own country/civilization from scratch anymore, unless the current civilization in charge of an area fractures/collapses (as in the case of Western Rome), which'd provide opportunity (as we saw with emergent Germanic Kingdoms, Goths, post-Roman Britain, rump Roman provinces becoming their own Little Romes, et cetera).
Morphic Tide
Well-known member
Copernicus fell afoul of the prevailing reading of Joshua 10:12-13. Angelology intersecting with natural law was a serious area of study. Where "the supernatural" isn't directly the result of "God in the gaps" defenses, it's missionaries dismissing locals' beliefs from relevance without having to argue them out of their understanding of what exists. The initial sophistry here is religions rejecting material claims to maintain their validity, not materialists butting their heads in expressly immaterial affairs.
And the Crusaders slaughtering the non-Christian residents of cities in "the Holy Land" is no big deal? The "bad emperor problem" getting millions killed every three to five hundred years? It might be more frequent (I'm of the opinion that it's mostly just greater ability to be a dick, such as the Khmer Rouge's use of radio), but you're delusional if you think that the ancient philosophies and religions haven't created "hell on earth" for plenty.
At a certain point, the blame has to be passed to the people who had nearly unquestioned moral authority for a dozen lifetimes straight for making a system without failsafes. The church had the opportunity to define everything about what was considered "right", and decided to make a completely all-or-nothing mass resting on God where before there was a variety of independent reasons, where any one thing rejected is equated to rejecting everything. The French Revolution is at least as much a Catholic failure as the modern CCP is a failing of Communism.
Second example to go with mrttao's post. Just because Intersectional Wokists subvert all the institutions does not mean the ideals are unified. Between their struggle-sessions and the fact that the literal churches get subverted by them, they themselves do not support "all progressive ideas" and you can't pin the institutions position on whether they're atheist or not.
You can't get millions of people to believe in the exact same higher power pressing for the exact same behaviors, and this reality has caused Christianity to commit quite a number of bloodbaths in its history ever since canonization. The Massacre of the Latins in 1182 comes to mind, as do the Wars of Religion.
Because of the inevitability of doctrinal drift, moral relativism is the norm. Abrahamic absolutism is the outlier, and demonstrably dysfunctional.
Again I refer to the "bad emperor problem". Not an atheism thing, but a one-man-in-charge thing. Which the Papacy went far out of its way to establish as expected, directly contributing to the East-West Schism.
(and yes, I really did leave the three quote alerts untouched for over three weeks)
From what I've been told, there were some rules about capturing cities back then. If you surrender right away when our army shows up, we'll treat you well. Close up and require us to do a siege, and we'll be a bit harsher when you run out of supplies and surrender.
Refuse to surrender at all, so that we have to storm the walls and take the city by force? Then you won't like what happens...
This was not some purely medieval thing, the ancient pagan Romans played by similar rules.
"Don't kill civilians" as a rule of war came later on... and sadly, did not really last long.
We don't normally take things in South-East Asia into account when comparing Medieval Europe with the modern world, but what makes big-C Communism so murderous is its basic premise of "Burn it all down so that we can't build something better in its place!" The more ideologically "pure" the Communist group, the more of an extreme format-and-reinstall they will try to impose on the places they take over.
Well, there's more than one side to that. The RCC in the era of the 11th to 17th centuries was very much into making themselves the supreme authority over everyone else, with "because The Church says so!" as the final argument, and designing society so that it would all implode if people stopped believing in the authority of the pope would have been seen by them as a feature, not a bug.
But on the other hand, they also supported the philosophical tradition reflected by people like Thomas Aquinias, with his attempt to derive much of morality from natural premises and logical deduction.
The RCC's dogmatic prohibition of contraception, for example, has not a word of Biblical authority behind it. It's 100% Thomistic/Aristotelian.
Marxist revolutionaries don't want to negotiate with you, they want to kill you. Their demands being incoherent, unreasonable and mutually-exclusive to each other, with the goalposts being moved anytime it starts to look as if any of them might actually be granted, is intentional.
They are not agreement-capable with anything other than the outright destruction of civilization.
This is as true of the Intersectional Left and other such "Cultural Marxists" as it is of the Trotskyites or Maoists.
Treating the existence of anyone who does not believe exactly the same as oneself as a problem to be solved by violence will predictably lead to lots and lots of violence, yes. But contrary to what you claim, that's not an exclusively Abrahamic mindset, nor is it one that all followers of Abrahamic faiths buy into.
Consider the very example you gave - the Orthodox churches rejecting the demand by the leader of the Roman church that he be accepted not merely as one of the leaders of Christianity, but as the only one, as the One Pope To Rule Them All.
Lots of wars came as a result of that split, but to my knowledge of history, all of them from the Papist side. The other side merely defended themselves.
Mostly true also of the Reformation. Being a Roman Catholic in a Protestant country was far less likely to result in being killed for refusing to change your religion than would being a Protestant in a Roman Catholic country.
A friend of mine said this, which I find amusing. In regards to modern degeneracy increasing.
Slaughtering cities which do not surrenderr and was taken by force was norm from ancient times.
Crusaders to not even try to convert muslims on taken territories and let them live as long as they pay taxes.
And,christians or even muslims never genocide nations like commies - becouse they both promised Paradise in next life,when commies tried to made it here and now.And becouse of that,people who do not fit,must die.
Moral relatywism do not work for any society - you must have some core belivs,and they always come from religions.
Imagine society where people belive that they could take other property or life.It would not work.
And why not kill or steal? ultimate reason is always religion.
Mostly true,but few early popes was taken by ERE emperors and murdered,becouse they do not agree bow to them.
And catholics in Scandinavian countries was simplu murdered,that is why till 19th century there was none of them.
In England - mostly murdered,there was even special trade - finding hiding priest,so they could be tortured to death.
Compared to both Inquisition,bloody Elisabeth murdered more in England alone,not counting Ireland.
I mean, he's/she's not wrong? Dating and marrying a modern, Western woman these days, especially an American, is like playing Russian roulette with your dick and a live wall socket.
You've got to be a glutton for punishment.
Typhonis
Well-known member
The Man code does state. "Thou shalt not stick it in crazy"I mean, he's/she's not wrong? Dating and marrying a modern, Western woman these days, especially an American, is like playing Russian roulette with your dick and a live wall socket.
You've got to be a glutton for punishment.
Some modern women make Azula look sane.
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
Azula was sane compared to a lot of modern women.
She had clear ambitions, wants, and desires. Took them to an unhealthy level, and pursued them in unhealthy ways, but if you knew what she was after and the particulars of her pride, you would be able to at least manage her by being explicit about intending to help her attain the throne.
Those who subscribe to post-modern critical intersectionism, there is no coherence, and that's the point.
Last edited:
DarthOne
☦️
Now that is depressing.
Morphic Tide
Well-known member
She was still far from sane. Even in her earliest appearances she's a deeply disturbing madwoman, but right up to the end she has clear goals in mind and reasons that properly follow through to those goals.
The difference is that most modern women aren't rational, because "the golem run amok" keeps layering on ad-hoc and often crowdsourced appeals to emotion, naturally creating numerous contradictions.
The best example being the collision of gender theory and feminism, because "women's rights" can't mean anything solid when you simultaneously push for "women" being a baseless social construct, and therefor unaltered biological males can be women.
Gender theorists themselves constantly conflating sex and gender despite the separation of the two being the foundation on which all their work is built is honestly an excellent example in itself.
What your discribing is a social system that cant possibly last forever and will collapse under its own contradicitons the quesiton though is how much damage it does before this happens.
KilroywasNOTHere
"BEEP!"
Moreso, how much will it infect and corrupt future philosophical thinking?
honestly man once things hit the shitter threshold I expect a very extreme reaction to this nonsense.
Something akin to the wests reaction to the world wars in severity so, realistically if your worried about corruption find what the core tenets of this madness are and then look at the logical extreme reaction to it.
KilroywasNOTHere
"BEEP!"
The Logical Extreme reaction? Same crap just for the benefit of different demographics. Namely Male WASP, hence part of the reason why I'm concerned as I don't fit perfectly in the demographics of either side of the political spectrum. No matter which side wins I'm "Dangerous."
Simonbob
Well-known member
No, this'll be a pendulum.
The swing's going to push it a bit further out, then the swing will go the other way, and it'll swing hard.
Feminism? Gone. LGBT+? Gone. There's likely to be quite a bit of race stuff, but that's not going to be the main thing, I think. I think it'll be other factors more. Generally?
If you work, and are reasonable? You'll come out better than now, I think. Well, unless you stick your head up too far, or have bad luck. But, if you want to improve your odds, I'd suggest being classicly Christian.
That's my guess, anyway. It might well go all in on race, or sex, or faith. Any trait might be defined as the marker, as the mob goes after those who have ruined everything. But, there are more and less likely options, and I expect it'll be quite obvious to those of us who are looking.
Best bet? Live a quiet but reasonable life somewhere where you can be a part of the local culture.
DarthOne
☦️
Lord above I hope you are right and that it’s not too far off.