Christian nationalists never miss an election. They vote every single time. Why the fuck would you miss an election when you know they are salivating at the thought of taking over your country? Early voting is already underway. Find your precinct, then show the fuck up.

Shows the Silver Award... and that's it.

When you come across a feel-good thing.

I'm in this with you.

Gives 100 Reddit Coins and a week of r/lounge access and ad-free browsing.

Gives 700 Reddit Coins and a month of r/lounge access and ad-free browsing.

Thank you stranger. Shows the award.

A glowing commendation for all to see

When an upvote just isn't enough, smash the Rocket Like.

Frans de Waal

Gives 100 Reddit Coins and a week of r/lounge access and ad-free browsing.

  1. You've really never heard "black people can't be racist" or "it's only racist if you punch down"? Standard woke nonsense. Jews have it rough, intersectional reverse supremacists think they're white, but Nazis sure don't.

  2. if republicans are refusing to believe in elections/ballots/losing etc, then why should the democrats in power step down if they lose their election?

  3. The far-right believes that the Democrats getting power would be so detrimental and destructive to the future of the US that it justifies abandoning democracy to prevent that outcome. That's really the sentiment underpinning the election denial on the right. The Jan 6 rioters were trying to save the country, in their minds.

  4. The basic idea of population level iq differences isn’t outlandish, but, as he said repeatedly, there is no good that will come from such research. All that shit does is feed prejudice and increase group level bias. If he thinks it’s harmful, don’t platform it. Seems pretty simple, but SH is cultivating an enlightened centrist audience and that means occasionally being anti-woke enough to platform seriously bad ideas. Still, he has enough good conversations that I keep coming back.

  5. Do you think special care has to be done with this kind of research because of the massively hyper charged conversation surrounding it? If so, then you see the point of the people trying to limit how research is done here. It's easy to perform research with the veneer of science that promotes racist conclusions.

  6. I'm far more interested in the pursuit of truth than managing how people are going to interpret the findings along the way.

  7. It is a frustration, that any attempt to talk about the increasing number of men that aren't having sex and starting families--a very real problem that is undoubtedly driving some portion of Trumpism, and is a harbinger for future, possibly catastrophic problems coming down the pike--is always automatically dismissed as some incel rant.

  8. Sitting on the internet bemoaning their condition magnifies that self same condition. Of course most women aren’t interested in angry nerds who waste their lives bitching on forums when they aren’t wasting their lives playing video games.

  9. Sure, now let's apply this in all directions. People living paycheck to paycheck? Sitting on the internet bemoaning their condition magnifies that same self condition.

  10. I don’t see a problem with a Hitler Halloween costume. Dressing up as bad people is part of the festivities.

  11. Because shitty antisocial behavior ruins things for everyone. Why not spend your shame on the candy criminals instead of the people trying to provide a good time on a holiday.

  12. Because this is how humanity has always been. So you can either live in the world that is, or the world you think should be. The latter will only bring frustration.

  13. What do your friend and coworker groups talk about ona daily basis? Mine usually are talking about factual things, what happened during the game last night, what happened on X show, telling some story about a factual event that happened, etc.

  14. You said debate, not "talk about." I asked for examples of things people debate with each other on a daily basis that have correct answers.

  15. Those are all debate topics around these parts in blue collar america dude. One person says X, another person chimes in no its Y, and there sparks the debate. Often about factual googlable information.

  16. So you're telling me people debate things like the score of a football game? Like someone says "the score was 21-7 and team A won" and another person chimes in "no, it was 14-17 and team B won"?

  17. Everything’s propaganda in a sense, not a very compelling criticism.

  18. You know very well if someone made a post calling for people to go vote against candidates supporting progressive/woke ideology--something Sam has spent far more time criticizing recently than Christian nationalism, by the way--that you would take issue.

  19. Nevermind that there are more senses than vision and closing one's eyes does not turn off conscious observation; you can obviously hit me with a baseball regardless of what I'm doing because you're still consciously observing the situation.

  20. In a world so crazy, sometimes it's nice to have some gratification off the like-minded as a reminder "I'm not crazy, and if I am, at least I'm not alone".

  21. Culture warrior conservatives literally campaign on "facts over feelings". This is about hypocrisy, not irony.

  22. Pick any topic: war, poverty, racism, etc --everything is better.

  23. Yeah, we're overly concerned with status these days. I suppose status always has been a concern with humans, but nowadays, jeez, if you're anything short of rich and famous you're a failure. Probably has something to do with being exposed to advertising our entire lives that tells us that we're each special and deserving of everything while at the same time enticing us with shit we will never be able to afford. Hard to imagine overcoming these expectations without unplugging from our devises, which will never happen.

  24. Terence McKenna famously recommended 5g for the kind of experience you’re describing.

  25. How tf do we reconcile this seemingly irreparable rift between political parties? It seems as if many people have completely lost faith in foundational institutions (science, media, political leaders, etc.)

  26. We don't. It will end in violence and the victor will write the history to justify themselves. And then life will go on under a new paradigm.

  27. Mental illness can make a person say, do, and believe all sorts of things. Why would bigotry magically be exempt?

  28. Because then bigots are victims and I have cognitive dissonance about my contempt for them.

  29. So you're suggesting that I, just like the rest of humanity, might be prone to confirmation bias? Oh my, what an insightful and productive remark.

  30. lol. Quick to insinuate others have confirmation bias. Yet here you are, applying whatever the polar opposite of occams razor is to arrive at your outlandish conclusion. Yes, more or less an entire nation went from regular people to the biggest group of the most vile psychopaths imaginable and back in hardly more than a decade. Because, uh, stressful environment. Makes sense.

  31. Speaking from experience, psychedelics can fuck you up too. You can get short term psychotic episodes (even with no prior mental illness), PTSD from bad trips without a psychotic episode, and long term it seems some people start developing a lot of false beliefs often spiritual or conspiratorial in nature.

  32. As someone who's run the gamut, transcendental experiences that lead to positive life changes, as well as hospitalized for psychotic breaks, my advice to anyone thinking of taking psychedelics:

  33. You presuppose that it is even possible for anyone to directly perceive reality. We can't. Sometimes we come to an agreement on what seems to be real, but often we can have two totally different understandings about what appears to be the same thing. In that case, one side isn't lying to the other -- they literally see the same thing differently.

  34. Yes, but that isn't lying. To lie is to be aware reality is one way (whether or not it actually is) and to willfully and intentionally alter one's presentation and behavior in front of others as to conceal from them that awareness.

  35. Parts of this idea are beautiful. It’s true we must be honest to benefit how our network of beings views reality. However, we can also observe moments when not telling the truth resulted in good, and that helps us build a good picture of reality too. I believe we don’t have the proper vocabulary for moments when not telling the truth is serving a positive, protective purpose. I wouldn’t call it a lie exactly. It is something else.

  36. He’s not doing it well or eloquently, but he’s at least reminding me of a thought I had a long time ago pertaining to the nature of our reality.

  37. It's chilling to witness. It's like, if this is a power game for you and you're only pretending it's not because that's advantageous for the power game... then there's no reason to even communicate, because communication only serves to give you space to play this game and make reality incoherent for everyone that opposes you.

  38. I don’t like the idea that white people aren’t allowed to say anything or participate in the conversation.

  39. I don’t even need to read this to know it’s not happening, and even if it is it’s a good thing probably. I’m on the right side of (my version of) history, how could I ever be wrong?

  40. It’s not a matter of which is more important. It’s apples to oranges. Real people are real and have real reactions and motivations. Fictional people are fictional and have fictional motivations. Sherilyn and Kyle are both gorgeous, gorgeous people, whether that’s now or at original air date. And if you’ll notice, I agreed that casting a sixteen year old to play a 25 year old would bother me in the post you replied to without reading fully.

  41. If it's apples to oranges then it shouldn't bother you if Fenn was underage and her character wasn't--you should be able to keep the two separate and just enjoy the show. But that it would bother you demonstrates that the characters and their respective actors aren't wholly divorced, and if they're both in the equation than the actor takes precedent over the character for applying moral judgments about age discrepancies since, you know, actual ages.

  42. I’m still not sure which point you’re trying to make with these contortionist statements.

  43. I don’t think those ideas are mutually exclusive. We can and should enact policies that reduce crime. Just like we can and should try to enact policies that rehabilitate criminals and protect the public without inflicting unnecessary punishment on people. People can learn things and change their opinions on topics.

  44. If we can and should enact polices despite not having free will, doesn't that mean criminals can and should not commit crimes? Again, you seem to want it both ways. Criminals are determined to be criminals but somehow we're not determined to punish them?

  45. I was joking with a colleague online and asked ASL? They didn’t know what I meant and I felt old as shit lol

  46. There were so many 18/f/californias in the early chatrooms. I think some of them may have been lying.

  47. You don't think consciousness separate from the physical brain is adding anything? What is this consciousness made of? How does it communicate with the physical brain? A new force? Some kind of new particle? What evidence do you have that it exists?

  48. You're literally adding something right there!! That there's something extra outside material reality, which is the only thing we have evidence for

  49. Consciousness. Consciousness is the evidence we have that there's a "missing ingredient" somewhere in the equation.

  50. Both sociologists and biologists have suggested that humans may have several basic behavioural programs, so to speak, that they run in response to circumstances, environmental cues. Context is everything, so much so that it takes our species two decades to learn it. Normal, unremarkable acts in a very different context can appear crazy. Saying humans are violent under the right circumstances is different from saying humans are inherently violent. A game theorist might add that it depends on the pay off. I don’t think we are really in disagreement on this, frankly.

  51. If the circumstances where people rationally enact violence are inherent to nature, then I think you can say humans are inherently violent.

  52. I don't think you can. Firstly, if the reaction is dependent on environmental conditions, it is by definition contextual and contingent, the opposite of inherent. If humans were violent regardless of context, then you could say they are inherently violent, isn't that the obvious formulation?

  53. What do you imagine is backing these environments we created for ourselves where we don't have to be violent?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Author: admin