Christianity

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Consider this . . .

I see one man saying 'we are emigrating'. Yeah. Probably to here, where they bring their fascist politics and fanatical kristian conservatisim with them Lucky us...

[vegetariantaxidermy]

And today wokies would call the Irish 'racist' for objecting to their country being flooded with royalist Scots and English. Or would they? Wokies are masters at hypocrisy and the double standard. It would probably confuse them terribly and they wouldn't know which moral high ground to take.

From dictionary.com

wokeism:
Usually Disparaging. promotion of liberal progressive ideology and policy as an expression of sensitivity to systemic injustices and prejudices:
She worked for nearly a decade at the university before she finally tired of the influence of wokeism.
“The only religion allowed around here is wokeism,” he complained.

Okay, but is there or is there not the conservative equivalent of this? Liberals go after those who don't think like they do about race or gender or sexual orientation or abortion or capital punishment or gun control or religion. What, and conservatives don't in turn insist that in order to be truly "awake", others are obligated to think as they do? There's not a right-wing rendition of "politically correct"?

Aren't the moral and political and religious objectivists here often fanatically "woke"? You think like they do or you are stupidly sound asleep to reality.

Can't you at least TRY to be original? How many times have I seen that self-congratulatory yank bullshit posted as some kind of 'victory' by a smug wokie? It's not even a real word--it's a grammatical abomination. That 'definition' is full of language bastardisation. When people give THEMSELVES a label that tells everyone else what wonderful human beings they are then it's inevitable that it will become an ironic insult. They are asking for it. Compliments have to come from OTHERS. You can't go around telling people you are 'handsome' or 'beautiful'. People will just laugh and think there is something wrong with you. Einstein didn't go around callling HIMSELF a genius. It was an honour that was bestowed on him by others. Did MLK tell everyone how 'woke' he was? Describe himself as a 'social justice warrior'? Of course not. He had a real cause, a job to do, and just did it.
And yes, conservative yank fuckturds have muddied the waters and called anyone who is left-leaning 'woke', and anyone who is 'woke' a 'leftie', confusing everthing. There's really no hope for the world...

[iambiguous]

And today wokies would call the Irish 'racist' for objecting to their country being flooded with royalist Scots and English. Or would they? Wokies are masters at hypocrisy and the double standard. It would probably confuse them terribly and they wouldn't know which moral high ground to take.

From dictionary.com

wokeism:
Usually Disparaging. promotion of liberal progressive ideology and policy as an expression of sensitivity to systemic injustices and prejudices:
She worked for nearly a decade at the university before she finally tired of the influence of wokeism.
“The only religion allowed around here is wokeism,” he complained.

Okay, but is there or is there not the conservative equivalent of this? Liberals go after those who don't think like they do about race or gender or sexual orientation or abortion or capital punishment or gun control or religion. What, and conservatives don't in turn insist that in order to be truly "awake", others are obligated to think as they do? There's not a right-wing rendition of "politically correct"?

Aren't the moral and political and religious objectivists here often fanatically "woke"? You think like they do or you are stupidly sound asleep to reality.

Can't you at least TRY to be original? How many times have I seen that self-congratulatory yank bullshit posted as some kind of 'victory' by a smug wokie? It's not even a real word--it's a grammatical abomination. That 'definition' is full of language bastardisation. When people give THEMSELVES a label that tells everyone else what wonderful human beings they are then it's inevitable that it will become an ironic insult. They are asking for it. Compliments have to come from OTHERS. You can't go around telling people you are 'handsome' or 'beautiful'. People will just laugh and think there is something wrong with you. Einstein didn't go around callling HIMSELF a genius. It was an honour that was bestowed on him by others. Did MLK tell everyone how 'woke' he was? Describe himself as a 'social justice warrior'? Of course not. He had a real cause, a job to do, and just did it.
And yes, conservative yanks fuckturds have muddied the waters and called anyone who is left-leaning 'woke', and anyone who is 'woke' a 'leftie', confusing everthing. There's really no hope for the world...

Okay, so back to this then:

Indeed, what, in my opinion, is always most intriguing about these at times "arrogant, autocratic, authoritarian" pontificators is not what they argue but the way they bully those who dare not to share their own insufferable dogmas.

So, perhaps, someday she might finally confront whatever or whoever turned her into this Satyrean/lorikeetian caricature. Something has clearly pissed her off in life. Something that brings her into places like this in order to vent. And to accumulate scapegoats.

It seems [to me] that she needs to make scapegoats of those she construes to be part of whatever she is outraged about. But what is it? And how did it come about?

Wouldn't that be far more fascinating to explore?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Stunning counterargument. I'm impressed. It's very difficult to 'counter' facts...

'Wokie' is short, simple, and layered. 'Virtue-signaller' is good but cumbersome, doesn't 'say' as much and is lacking in irony. I'll stick with 'wokie'.

[Immanuel Can]

Stunning counterargument. I'm impressed. It's very difficult to 'counter' facts...

'Wokie' is short, simple, and layered. 'Virtue-signaller' is good but cumbersome, doesn't 'say' as much and is lacking in irony. I'll stick with 'wokie'.

"The Woking Dead"?

[iambiguous]

Stunning counterargument. I'm impressed. It's very difficult to 'counter' facts...

'Wokie' is short, simple, and layered. 'Virtue-signaller' is good but cumbersome, doesn't 'say' as much and is lacking in irony. I'll stick with 'wokie'.

Sure, it's always possible that she posted this without intending it to be ironic. In fact, she may well not even be aware of this herself.

[Belinda]

Alexis Jacobi wrote (excerpt from his lengthy discussion):

What was created by the South African (the original settlers, the Boers, the English) was something extraordinary and, in this sense, supplants whatever I might appreciate about primitive African culture (though I admit that there is not much in it that I value very much nor can *relate to*). I can certainly lament though the loss or destruction (or modification) of the cultures that did exist there.

In the context of societies and their cultures, "primitive" is subjective evaluation and reactionary to boot.

Very well then: I embrace my value-assessment and elevate my *subjective assessment* through an act of my will and decisiveness. And if this is reactionary I resolve to solidify my reaction with, at least, sound reasonings. And I am certain I can make an excellent case.

If it is my preference .. so be it. I will advocate for what is preferential from my perspective. I can, and I certainly have made efforts to, appreciate the so-called primitive and the barbarian (in the old sense of the word), but in the final analysis I don't really give much of a damn about the preservation of old stone age cultural forms. Yet I say this not without appreciation for some aspects of those forms. I used to attend Sioux sweat lodges and I have also lived with Indian groups (for limited periods of time) in the mountains of the Sierra Mazateca. I am not unfamiliar with different cultures nor am I condemning of them.

You *push* me to the point that I must take. I favor the cultures that melded to become European South Africa by my choice and by my decisiveness. It is from this position that I would then make a larger defense of that culture and, simultaneously, express regret that it is undergoing a dis-favorable transformation as a result of the imposition of liberal values'. Is there an alternative? There does not appear to be one. Was there an alternative that could have resulted in something resmbling 'justice'? (Or another form of it?) I am uncertain.

What does this mean, then, for my position in relation to my present? My culture. My nation? What I would say is mine and belongs to me? That is of course the central question. So I have contextualized this abstract conversation down to a ground level. It always resolves to issues of power it seems to me. One way or another.

I don't doubt that politically imposed colonisation, and imperialism, are issues of power. If indigenous Americans or the indigenous Africans in those territories that were conquered had had the power to do so they would have been the victors. Noble savages are not synonymous with indigenous peoples and vice versa.

Power is the method, not the motive, for political colonisation and imperialism.The motive is fear. Fear is the motive force of all authorities , all regimes, when they have become aggressive.

E.g. The Romans invaded and conquered much of Albion and gave Albion its newer name Britannia. The Romans wanted the natural resources but only so far as these were obtainable without too much trouble. The Picts were a constant nuisance so Hadrian's wall was used to demarcate the lands that were economically viable. Grain from the south of the island could easily be stolen and shipped off to Rome. Nothing of this pattern has changed up to and including the year 2022. Fear of deprivation, and actual deprivation is a strong motivator for aggressive greed.

Now contrast the above facts of life against the Xian message of love where the rich man can't enter Heaven. Socialism is an uphill fight but it's still being fought.

[Alexis Jacobi]

E.g. The Romans invaded and conquered much of Albion and gave Albion its newer name Britannia. The Romans wanted the natural resources but only so far as these were obtainable without too much trouble. The Picts were a constant nuisance so Hadrian's wall was used to demarcate the lands that were economically viable. Grain from the south of the island could easily be stolen and shipped off to Rome. Nothing of this pattern has changed up to and including the year 2022. Fear of deprivation, and actual deprivation is a strong motivator for aggressive greed.

Many don’t consider that the civilization we have, and seem to value, came to us through processes of conquest and occupation.

Nietzsche pointed out in Genealogy of Morals that the imposition of civilization (law, obedience) is at its root an affair of violence. You do or you are punished.

We have been made into *civilized beings* through the administration of fairly terrifying punishments.

On a tangential note . . .

Oh look, there's Demeter bringing in the sheaves!

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Stunning counterargument. I'm impressed. It's very difficult to 'counter' facts...

'Wokie' is short, simple, and layered. 'Virtue-signaller' is good but cumbersome, doesn't 'say' as much and is lacking in irony. I'll stick with 'wokie'.

Sure, it's always possible that she posted this without intending it to be ironic. In fact, she may well not even be aware of this herself.

Please explain wherein lies the irony.

[Belinda]

E.g. The Romans invaded and conquered much of Albion and gave Albion its newer name Britannia. The Romans wanted the natural resources but only so far as these were obtainable without too much trouble. The Picts were a constant nuisance so Hadrian's wall was used to demarcate the lands that were economically viable. Grain from the south of the island could easily be stolen and shipped off to Rome. Nothing of this pattern has changed up to and including the year 2022. Fear of deprivation, and actual deprivation is a strong motivator for aggressive greed.

Many don’t consider that the civilization we have, and seem to value, came to us through processes of conquest and occupation.

Nietzsche pointed out in Genealogy of Morals that the imposition of civilization (law, obedience) is at its root an affair of violence. You do or you are punished.

We have been made into *civilized beings* through the administration of fairly terrifying punishments.

On a tangential note . . .

Oh look, there's Demeter bringing in the sheaves!

Not all invaders are civilised or capable of transmitting benefits of civilisation to other peoples. It's simplistic to generalise and better to find a balance between optimism and pessimism about the progress of civilisation. On balance civilisation is structured on means of subsistence.

[attofishpi]

..*nonsense*...

I must apologise for my terrible language last night Harry.

Atto=instant arsehole (just add alcohol and talk nonsense to him)

[attofishpi]

Oh look, there's Demeter bringing in the sheaves!

Wow. That is just so wrong.




..that's more like it.

[iambiguous]

Stunning counterargument. I'm impressed. It's very difficult to 'counter' facts...

'Wokie' is short, simple, and layered. 'Virtue-signaller' is good but cumbersome, doesn't 'say' as much and is lacking in irony. I'll stick with 'wokie'.

Sure, it's always possible that she posted this without intending it to be ironic. In fact, she may well not even be aware of this herself.

Please explain wherein lies the irony.

Well, from my point of view, few are as fierce as you are in mocking those who dare not to share your own moral and political prejudices. You embody the woke mentality in post after post. So, you go after only those you insist need to wake up. And to be wide-awake for those of your ilk is to think about this or that issue as you do.

Or, rather, so it seems to those of my ilk.

And that strikes me as ironic. This, and hypocritical too.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Sure, it's always possible that she posted this without intending it to be ironic. In fact, she may well not even be aware of this herself.

Please explain wherein lies the irony.

Well, from my point of view, few are as fierce as you are in mocking those who dare not to share your own moral and political prejudices. You embody the woke mentality in post after post. So, you go after only those you insist need to wake up. And to be wide-awake for those of your ilk is to think about this or that issue as you do.

Or, rather, so it seems to those of my ilk.

And that strikes me as ironic. This, and hypocritical too.

Nothing to do with 'morality'. You don't know what the fuck you are talking about. Oooh. Is that a 'wokie' expression? What a fucking idiot you are.

[popeye1945]

The fundamental or foundation of morality is the well-being of all life forms. Our own myopia assures our self-interest comes first, but we are of a common carbon-based biology of beings, that have the ability for both suffering and joy. The harsh reality of life is that life lives upon life but if we are to claim humanity as a virtue, compassion must be addressed to all living things and termed morality. Life and the earth that sustains it, must then be seen as sacred. None of the desert religions of today are up to the manifestation of truth virtue.