4 ms·

I feel like the defining feature of modern American conservatism is now a pathological inability to distinguish cause and effect.

kevin_thibedeau 2y ago
Critical thinking makes baby Jesus cry.
- MrMcCall 2y ago
  But adult Jesus says, "Whatever you do to anyone, you have done to me." Fakeass Christians don't understand that means undocumented folks, non-white folks, non-Christian folks, women, and folks of other sexual preferences and gender identities. "That which you do to the least of my brothers and sisters, that you do unto me." --Jesus of Nazareth "Love your neighbor as yourself." --Jesus of Nazareth The thing about the "No true Scotsman fallacy" is that the person does have to at least be a Scotsman, if that's what they're calling themself.
  - prewett 2y ago
    > folks of other sexual preferences and gender identities Since Jesus was an observant Jew, who explicitly said that not a letter of the Mosaic Law would pass away, I don't think he would be support of sexual "preferences" and "gender identities". The Law pretty much placed everything except sex within marriage as out of bounds, and not only did Jesus uphold the Law, but he even upped the requirements from actions to unexpressed desires. For instance, the Law only required not committing the act of adultery, but Jesus said that even looking at someone lustfully was adultery. So I can't see Jesus being supportive, but rather saying "go and sin no more". Actually, I think Jesus was rather opposed to people who had identities of any sort, since he called people to an identity in himself. He had the harshest words for the Pharisees, who had an identity of "holy". The prostitutes and tax collectors and other "sinners" that Jesus hung out with agreed that they were not keeping the Law and repented of it, but if you've got an identity (that is, it is what you define yourself by), by definition you aren't going to be repentant about it.
    - MrMcCall 2y ago
      He also said, "There is much that you cannot bear now, but when he, the Spirit of Truth, comes, he will lead you into all things." Love is the rule. The Great(est) Command(ment) of all. And, Jesus, of course, manifested such love completely, so his saying, "go and sin no more" is love, but he wasn't throwing any stones (literally), only giving advice -- but very, very good and important advice, for sure. And he also did literally protect the adulterer from get stoned, and he was fulfilling the Law there, too. What we do in our homes behind closed doors is our business and our business alone (unless we are harming another adult against their will (or harming a child), then we must carefully intercede as a society on behalf of the innocent). Put more simply, we all have the free will to choose how to live according to our wishes, with those certain caveats and careful, compassionate discernment. Absolutely, there are societal-level problems with sex outside of marriage, regardless of the genders of the people involved, but I'm pretty sure we are not authorized to intrude into someone's home life, except in extraordinary circumstances. The Law's sole purpose is our happiness, and serves to guide us towards an ever more compassionate society. But societies also have the right to create rules for themselves, should their majority decide to set them into stone, so to speak. [Democracy is God's Will; the oppression of tyrrany is a form of evil.] I don't believe that intruding into someone's personal life outside of the public's view is ever in love's best interest. Regardless, the rules for oneself are intrinsically on a different level and nature than those imposed by govt upon everyone, yet we must try to walk a very blurry line and make a dilligent effort to incorporate the Great(est) Command(ment) into our societies' laws and enforcement -- or failure, misery, and strife will be the result. I, personally, wouldn't be comfortable punishing someone for what they do in the privacy of their own home, but I can't in any way claim that to be authoritative, it's just my sense of loving others and wanting them to be happy with the choices they make. My counsel would be to keep things simple and not let the vice of greed/lust dominate one destructively, for both their and society's well-being and happiness. > He had the harshest words for the Pharisees, who had an identity of "holy" Phuck the Pharisees, those worthless fools. They have sold their souls for a small price. They get all the reward they're going to get from their hypcritical proclamations. Their "identity of holiness" is an utter lie and is not worth a jot. > if you've got an identity (that is, it is what you define yourself by), by definition you aren't going to be repentant about it Well, everyone's stubborn until they're not. Everyone acts out of vice until they choose to learn how to be virtuous. Patience is the last perfected virtue (and few reach that lofty peak), and is required to be "pure in heart" as stated in that one Beatitude. Thanks for your well-considered, thoughtful, and though-provoking response. I don't have all the answers on this very thorny problem here in 2025. I hope my reply makes sense, though it is surely the first time I've put serious thought into or words together on this topic in this level of detail/amount of rambling :-) Peace be with you. Thank you for this conversation. I am at your service.
duderific 2y ago
I don't think it's inability to distinguish. At least for those in the public sphere, it's a willful disregard for facts entirely, because acknowledging facts would put them in opposition to the president, thus potentially setting them up to be banished by the party.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > because acknowledging facts would put them in opposition to the president Let’s be honest, both parties are doing these dances of hypocrisy. Stay-the-course Dems defending Biden and continuing to demonise both wealth and populism aren’t much better. It’s not as bad, blatant or personalised. But it’s there.
  - throwup238 2y ago
    Honest? If the Democrats even remotely demonized wealth, we’d be in a completely different situation today.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > If the Democrats even remotely demonized wealth The point is we have strong rhetoric around both. That is internally inconsistent.
- zamalek 2y ago
  I think the GP might have been referring to voters, I frequently hear from them how Republican economics are better because, allegedly, there is less spending ("allegedly" is doing a lot of work there - we all know how the national deficit trends between the two parties). Businesses across the country initially reacted very well to him coming to power, though that honeymoon is abruptly coming to an end.
- mullingitover 2y ago
  The last episode of This American Life[1] really nails it to the wall: > The bully lie is different. It doesn't try to convince you. It doesn't present evidence. It just tells you to pick a side. So when the president said that diversity programs caused the plane crash over the Potomac, when he called the president of Ukraine a dictator without elections, he didn't lay out a set of facts to make his case. He wasn't interested in rebuttal. > When he does this kind of thing, Masha writes, he's "asserting control over reality itself" and splitting the country into those who agree to live in his reality and those who resist and become his enemies by insisting on facts. [1] https://www.thisamericanlife.org/855/transcript https://www.thisamericanlife.org/855/transcript
lykahb 2y ago
I'd call many of the non-Trump factions of the Republican Party conservative. But the current administration is far from that given their threats to the long-term allies, weakening NATO, and swift changes to the federal govt.

kevin_thibedeau 2y ago

Critical thinking makes baby Jesus cry.

MrMcCall 2y ago
But adult Jesus says, "Whatever you do to anyone, you have done to me." Fakeass Christians don't understand that means undocumented folks, non-white folks, non-Christian folks, women, and folks of other sexual preferences and gender identities. "That which you do to the least of my brothers and sisters, that you do unto me." --Jesus of Nazareth "Love your neighbor as yourself." --Jesus of Nazareth The thing about the "No true Scotsman fallacy" is that the person does have to at least be a Scotsman, if that's what they're calling themself.
- prewett 2y ago
  > folks of other sexual preferences and gender identities Since Jesus was an observant Jew, who explicitly said that not a letter of the Mosaic Law would pass away, I don't think he would be support of sexual "preferences" and "gender identities". The Law pretty much placed everything except sex within marriage as out of bounds, and not only did Jesus uphold the Law, but he even upped the requirements from actions to unexpressed desires. For instance, the Law only required not committing the act of adultery, but Jesus said that even looking at someone lustfully was adultery. So I can't see Jesus being supportive, but rather saying "go and sin no more". Actually, I think Jesus was rather opposed to people who had identities of any sort, since he called people to an identity in himself. He had the harshest words for the Pharisees, who had an identity of "holy". The prostitutes and tax collectors and other "sinners" that Jesus hung out with agreed that they were not keeping the Law and repented of it, but if you've got an identity (that is, it is what you define yourself by), by definition you aren't going to be repentant about it.
  - MrMcCall 2y ago
    He also said, "There is much that you cannot bear now, but when he, the Spirit of Truth, comes, he will lead you into all things." Love is the rule. The Great(est) Command(ment) of all. And, Jesus, of course, manifested such love completely, so his saying, "go and sin no more" is love, but he wasn't throwing any stones (literally), only giving advice -- but very, very good and important advice, for sure. And he also did literally protect the adulterer from get stoned, and he was fulfilling the Law there, too. What we do in our homes behind closed doors is our business and our business alone (unless we are harming another adult against their will (or harming a child), then we must carefully intercede as a society on behalf of the innocent). Put more simply, we all have the free will to choose how to live according to our wishes, with those certain caveats and careful, compassionate discernment. Absolutely, there are societal-level problems with sex outside of marriage, regardless of the genders of the people involved, but I'm pretty sure we are not authorized to intrude into someone's home life, except in extraordinary circumstances. The Law's sole purpose is our happiness, and serves to guide us towards an ever more compassionate society. But societies also have the right to create rules for themselves, should their majority decide to set them into stone, so to speak. [Democracy is God's Will; the oppression of tyrrany is a form of evil.] I don't believe that intruding into someone's personal life outside of the public's view is ever in love's best interest. Regardless, the rules for oneself are intrinsically on a different level and nature than those imposed by govt upon everyone, yet we must try to walk a very blurry line and make a dilligent effort to incorporate the Great(est) Command(ment) into our societies' laws and enforcement -- or failure, misery, and strife will be the result. I, personally, wouldn't be comfortable punishing someone for what they do in the privacy of their own home, but I can't in any way claim that to be authoritative, it's just my sense of loving others and wanting them to be happy with the choices they make. My counsel would be to keep things simple and not let the vice of greed/lust dominate one destructively, for both their and society's well-being and happiness. > He had the harshest words for the Pharisees, who had an identity of "holy" Phuck the Pharisees, those worthless fools. They have sold their souls for a small price. They get all the reward they're going to get from their hypcritical proclamations. Their "identity of holiness" is an utter lie and is not worth a jot. > if you've got an identity (that is, it is what you define yourself by), by definition you aren't going to be repentant about it Well, everyone's stubborn until they're not. Everyone acts out of vice until they choose to learn how to be virtuous. Patience is the last perfected virtue (and few reach that lofty peak), and is required to be "pure in heart" as stated in that one Beatitude. Thanks for your well-considered, thoughtful, and though-provoking response. I don't have all the answers on this very thorny problem here in 2025. I hope my reply makes sense, though it is surely the first time I've put serious thought into or words together on this topic in this level of detail/amount of rambling :-) Peace be with you. Thank you for this conversation. I am at your service.

duderific 2y ago

I don't think it's inability to distinguish. At least for those in the public sphere, it's a willful disregard for facts entirely, because acknowledging facts would put them in opposition to the president, thus potentially setting them up to be banished by the party.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> because acknowledging facts would put them in opposition to the president Let’s be honest, both parties are doing these dances of hypocrisy. Stay-the-course Dems defending Biden and continuing to demonise both wealth and populism aren’t much better. It’s not as bad, blatant or personalised. But it’s there.
- throwup238 2y ago
  Honest? If the Democrats even remotely demonized wealth, we’d be in a completely different situation today.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > If the Democrats even remotely demonized wealth The point is we have strong rhetoric around both. That is internally inconsistent.
zamalek 2y ago
I think the GP might have been referring to voters, I frequently hear from them how Republican economics are better because, allegedly, there is less spending ("allegedly" is doing a lot of work there - we all know how the national deficit trends between the two parties). Businesses across the country initially reacted very well to him coming to power, though that honeymoon is abruptly coming to an end.
mullingitover 2y ago
The last episode of This American Life[1] really nails it to the wall: > The bully lie is different. It doesn't try to convince you. It doesn't present evidence. It just tells you to pick a side. So when the president said that diversity programs caused the plane crash over the Potomac, when he called the president of Ukraine a dictator without elections, he didn't lay out a set of facts to make his case. He wasn't interested in rebuttal. > When he does this kind of thing, Masha writes, he's "asserting control over reality itself" and splitting the country into those who agree to live in his reality and those who resist and become his enemies by insisting on facts. [1] https://www.thisamericanlife.org/855/transcript https://www.thisamericanlife.org/855/transcript

lykahb 2y ago

I'd call many of the non-Trump factions of the Republican Party conservative. But the current administration is far from that given their threats to the long-term allies, weakening NATO, and swift changes to the federal govt.