Posts by Alex Taylor7

The USA essentially spiraled into decadence by the late eighties and just fell apart.
I honestly think it’s such a shame that the states couldn't reach an agreement—largely because of Mexico—to establish some sort of looser federation. It could have functioned as a way to maintain economic cooperation while giving individual states more autonomy. Think of it like a miniature version of the EU. If we had managed to avoid the war and focused on a gradual transition to a market economy, we probably would have joined the EU much sooner, and we'd be far more developed than most of the countries in Eastern Europe today.
It really comes down to the power grabs by certain politicians, especially Maddox, whose constant obstruction of the USA's official institutions is what ultimately landed us where we are now.

mistyjackal14 said:I wasn't talking about gods specifically, but rather about faith—or perhaps more accurately, a framework for how one processes thought. Even Buddhists wouldn't necessarily fall under the label of atheists in this context.

Perhaps I’ve caused some confusion regarding the whole liberal versus conservative distinction:

Let me offer a concrete example to clarify:
Traditionalists in the World might head to a cemetery; those considered liberals back home might visit a graveyard too, or perhaps they're busy consuming green Soylent, while what we currently define as liberals tends to frequent bars, masquerading as monsters.

Around here, political parties mostly skip the cemetery altogether unless they are actively putting on a costume.

The entity that is truly modern, liberal, and progressive in our neck of the woods—the one pushing all those Western advancements—is actually the media.
As the old revolutionaries move closer to these new values, one gets the impression that the media is left-wing, but in reality, they are actually (neo)liberal.

Regarding that point about the Democratic Party, the key lies in their active restraint—that sense of neutrality—rather than outright opposition, which is essentially a matter of knowing when to stay quiet or when to speak up.

But then you end up using the wrong term, because "atheism" refers to specifically what you weren't addressing in the first place.

mistyjackal14 said:Quentin Tarantino

I’ve been sitting here thinking about how we label ourselves, and I can't help but feel that terms like "liberal" or "atheist" are more like ghosts than actual realities. Are they even real philosophical categories? It seems to me that neither group truly fits their own definition, because if you really look closely, aren't liberals actually quite constrained in their thinking, and aren't atheists still clinging to some sort of underlying belief system? It makes you wonder if these labels are just convenient shields we use to hide from the complexity of who we actually are.
Quentin Tarantino:

Master Shifu Asks: When you step back and really look at the landscape of American society, I find myself constantly wondering whether we lean more toward being a liberal nation or a conservative one, or if perhaps we are just caught in this perpetual, restless tug-of-war between the two. It isn't a question that yields a simple, black-and-white answer, is it? One moment it feels like our cultural values are shifting rapidly toward a more progressive, liberal worldview, especially in the bustling hubs like New York or San Francisco, yet in the heartland, in places like Ohio or Tennessee, there remains such a profound, unshakable commitment to traditional conservative principles. Is it possible that we aren't actually one thing or the other, but rather a collection of deeply divided identities all trying to occupy the same space at once? I often wonder if the media makes it seem more polarized than it actually is, or if the friction we see is a genuine reflection of a country struggling to decide what its core identity should be in this modern age.

It seems to me that American society is largely defined by its conservatism, though if you really stop to look at the underlying layers, it’s far from a monolith, isn't it? You have this distinct divide where you see the traditionalist conservatives—those who hold firmly to long-standing values—existing alongside a rather peculiar group of former radicals or old-school revolutionaries who somehow transitioned into a conservative mindset themselves. It makes one wonder how such seemingly opposite ideologies can eventually find common ground in the same social sphere, doesn't it?
The rest of them? Honestly, it feels like they’re mostly just some newly minted, Western-style sycophants—those folks you always hear labeled as "liberals."
Quentin Tarantino

It seems like everyone I come across is strictly aligned with one side or the other, always leaning heavily toward some conservative camp, while true liberals—those who actually fit the definition—seem to be nowhere to be found in the current political landscape.

You could certainly argue that all the political parties fall under the umbrella of liberalism, but isn't it true that the term itself has become somewhat obsolete? It seems to me that the word carries such a different weight now than it did in decades past, almost as if the definitions have shifted beneath our feet. If you look closely at the evolution of the landscape, doesn't it feel like many of those who once identified as liberals have essentially transitioned into being conservatives today?

That’s exactly how they go about defining themselves, isn't it? It’s almost like they’ve built this entire framework just to justify their own existence, creating these elaborate excuses to validate everything they do. Is it possible that they aren't actually acting on principle at all, but are instead just circling back to these self-serving justifications whenever they feel cornered? It feels like a constant loop of rationalization, where the goal isn't truth, but simply finding a way to make their actions seem acceptable to themselves.

When you really sit down and look at the underlying political landscape and the hard facts at hand, isn't it clear that choosing to abstain from voting on independence becomes more than just a personal choice? It actually serves as the fundamental factual basis for the entire situation, doesn't it?

I'm struggling to follow here. So, you're suggesting that I—someone who doesn't believe there's any kind of deity sitting in the clouds—actually *do* believe in at least one god? That all atheists, by some strange twist, possess a belief in the existence of a higher power? 🤷