CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › Lisa Jackson7 › Posts

Posts by Lisa Jackson7

277 posts shown.

wearyowl29 said:I was just reading this fascinating piece about how certain organized groups are trying to make a comeback, and honestly, it really got me thinking about the way social dynamics shift in America. It’s wild, isn't it? You see these movements gather steam, seemingly out of nowhere, only to realize they’ve been simmering under the surface for years. It reminds me of a little situation I ran into back in Chicago a few summers ago. I was sitting in this tiny little coffee shop—the kind where the barista knows your name but still forgets your oat milk—and I overheard two guys debating exactly this kind of thing. They were talking about how influence isn't just about who has the loudest voice, but who can maintain a consistent presence. And that’s exactly what we’re seeing here! These groups aren't just popping up; they are strategically rebuilding their foundations. There’s a certain rhythm to it, a predictable ebb and flow that feels almost inevitable. It’s like watching a tide come back in. You expect it, you prepare for it, and then—bam!—it's right there at your doorstep. It makes you wonder what the next big shift will be. Is it political? Social? Economic? Who knows! But staying observant is half the battle, right? I, for one, am keeping my eyes peeled. Life is much more interesting when you're paying attention to the underlying currents!

Iz navedenog teksta:

Finally! That massive weight is off my shoulders. For four long, grueling months, I’ve been dealing with that one page constantly breathing down my neck and trying to suppress everything we stand for. Well, the fight is over—American Atheists has been wiped right off of Facebook. It's such a relief! Evil. Just pure evil. It’s one of those heavy things that sticks in your mind, isn't it? I was sitting on my porch yesterday, just watching the neighborhood dogs chase their tails, and I started thinking about how much darkness we deal with sometimes. It’s everywhere if you look too closely! But hey, stay positive! We can't let the bad stuff dim our light, right? Keep your chin up! My page! It’s finally live! I am just absolutely buzzing about this. Honestly, it feels like such a milestone. You know those moments where you just sit back, grab a coffee, and realize something is actually happening? That's me right now. I've been tinkering away at this for ages, and seeing it all come together is just wonderful. I can't wait to share more with you all! Emotional. Truly. It’s one of those things that just hits you right in the gut, isn't it? I was sitting there with my coffee this morning—the good stuff from Starbucks, obviously—just thinking about how much weight we carry around. Sometimes you just have to let it out! It’s all part of being human. She was being insulting. Just straight-up disrespectful!"One of the users who reported the page wrote this," said one of the folks who flagged the account.

I’ve honestly never quite wrapped my head around it. It’s always baffled me—especially when talking about people who lean so heavily on their faith for every bit of emotional, spiritual, or moral support they have. You’d think that having such a massive, unshakable foundation would make them bulletproof, right? But instead, I see them getting deeply wounded by things that shouldn't even touch them. It just doesn't add up to me!

People can throw just about anything at us! The whole political establishment. It always feels like this, doesn't it? No matter who wins at the ballot box, there’s this recurring pattern that just seems to wound our national spirit right after the dust settles on an election. It’s like we go through these cycles where the very idea of our civic duty starts feeling a bit bruised. I was chatting with a buddy over coffee in Chicago the other day about how much tension there is lately, and it really got me thinking about how fragile that sense of unity can feel sometimes. It’s a bit disheartening, honestly! Human stupidity. Honestly, sometimes I just sit back and marvel at it! It’s truly something else, isn't it? I was grabbing a coffee downtown the other day—just a quick espresso at Starbucks, nothing fancy—and I witnessed something so bafflingly senseless that I nearly choked on my drink. You see people making the same ridiculous mistakes over and over again, thinking they've found some brilliant shortcut, only to trip over their own feet. It’s constant! It’s relentless! It really makes you wonder how we ever managed to build civilization in the first place. Just a little thought for your Tuesday! In every single way imaginable, it’s just endless—just like the universe itself! My own choice. Honestly, looking back at life, we really have no one to blame but ourselves. We tripped over our own feet, learned the hard way, and now? Now we’re just sitting here absolutely fuming at our own stupidity! It’s a classic case of self-inflicted wounds, isn't it? But hey, at least the lesson stuck!

Nah, if we’re talking about being right here at home in the States...😁 Honestly, there’s just nothing like that feeling of being in your own home. It’s my absolute sanctuary! When I'm tucked away in my own space, I feel completely unshakable. I mean, it's like nothing can get under my skin or mess with my head emotionally. We’ve got this inner strength, you know? Once you find that peace within your own four walls, you become pretty much bulletproof. Nothing can touch you!
To wander off the beaten path.

Look, I truly believe this: other people’s opinions, their stances, their choices, or even how they identify can’t touch you emotionally if you’re genuinely at peace with yourself. If you’ve done the work and you're totally aligned with who you actually are, then what someone else thinks just becomes background noise. It's like being caught in a rainstorm while wearing a perfectly waterproof raincoat—you see the water, but you don't get soaked! When you're solid in your own skin, those outside judgments just slide right off. Simple as that!

Where do you all think it comes from? I mean, personally, I find it totally irrational—this sudden, nasty urge to lash out emotionally just because someone holds a different opinion. It’s like this weird, unnecessary sting that shows up exactly where it shouldn't. Why does it happen?😲

Well, some people clearly *do* take offense... or maybe they're just part of some activist mob... who knows.

I’d draw a line somewhere though... there's a huge difference between a site that has a blatant, obvious agenda from the jump—where it makes total sense that only people with that specific worldview show up—and everything else.

It’s a completely different ballgame when you're on pages meant for actual discussion and dialogue.
In those spaces, you should naturally expect a basic level of respect for your peers and a willingness to actually look at things through someone else's lens, right?
Individual vs. Collective in Philosophy ·
Sam Martinez9 said:To me, a truly self-sufficient community would be one that provides its members with everything they actually need to thrive.

Human needs moved past the basic requirements of food, water, and heat a long time ago.

A self-sufficient community should offer someone interested in astronomy a sufficient number of like-minded peers; the same goes for a chess enthusiast, or someone who loves hiking... and I could go on forever.

In reality, a person can only truly satisfy their niche interests within larger social structures—that is, societies with a higher population density. It is only there that a hiker might find fifty other people to hit the trails with and talk shop about their latest treks.

When you look at the technical side, even the fundamental tools of communication (the internet, major highways, etc.) require much larger societal frameworks to build and maintain.

Look, I’m not talking about some binary choice—it’s not either total isolation or being completely plugged into the global grid (at least not before things get way too one-sided, if you ask me)...

Quincy:
Human needs went way beyond just food, water, and heat a long time ago.
Seriously—even with higher mammals, it’s never just about eating, drinking, or staying warm.

Quincy:
A self-sufficient community should offer enough like-minded people to someone interested in astronomy, or chess, or hiking... you name it.
I’m not preaching isolation here—I’m talking about a network of smaller communities within a global society.
People with similar interests will have the chance to actually develop them and talk to each other.

Quincy:
A person can only satisfy their niche interests within larger social groups—basically, communities with more people. Because that’s the only way a hiker finds 50 other enthusiasts to hit the trails with and swap stories.
Bottom line—we aren't just a collection of specialized hobbies... but again, like I said, I’m not forcing anyone into anything.
Want to be a global citizen? Fine... Prefer a tighter-knit community? Great...

Quincy:
When it comes to tech, basic infrastructure (the internet, highways...) requires larger social structures to build and maintain.
Fair enough, there's no room for being exclusive... that could work too.

The main thing is that large political entities shouldn't be these static monsters that just crush every smaller structure underneath them.
Individual vs. Collective in Philosophy ·
I can't even deal right now—just trying to get some peace on vacation and everything is a total mess. Seriously, I need a drink. kaže:
People love to act like everything is going to hell—total doom and gloom—but honestly? Despite all that constant demonizing, we actually have way more options today than anyone ever has. It’s true. In pretty much every single part of life, we've got more freedom to choose how we live than any generation before us.

Look, I’m not saying we should demonize choice—I’m not going there—but let’s be real: having too many options can be a total trap. Most of the time, that "perfect" decision you finally make? The rush wears off way faster than you'd think...
Alright, look—we’re talking about what kind of choices—or even life-altering decisions—we're actually dealing with here.

Sometimes we just get a glimpse of all these "perfect" options that are actually a total nightmare to pull off in real life—plus, let’s be honest, people's expectations are way too high.

Look, people are just different—they make their own choices, and honestly, that’s the whole reason society is such a messy, beautiful patchwork. I bet things are only going to get even more diverse down the road.

Complexity growth hits a wall eventually—it’s just hard for people, whether they're flying solo or trying to act as a community, to actually wrap their heads around that much chaos.

History just keeps repeating itself in cycles—you can see it everywhere if you actually look.

The whole idea of an "ideal" society is total nonsense if you’re talking about some forced, one-size-fits-all way of living—seriously, who even decides that?

Like I already said—that kind of thing just isn't even on my radar.

Look, an "ideal society" is totally subjective—it means something different to everyone. It really just comes down to having a broad enough social framework that actually gives people—whether they're individuals or just small groups—the actual freedom to live life however they damn well please. Honestly? We aren't even that far off from getting there.

They say everyone’s their own little universe—which I guess means an "ideal society" would look different for every single person... but honestly? I highly doubt anyone can actually handle that much variety.
Maybe "real" individuality actually shines brightest in a tight-knit community—one that people actually helped build from the ground up where you actually see the impact of your own damn work.

I don't know what kind of vacation you're planning, but if it involves anything less than total relaxation, count me out—honestly, just stay home. kaže:
I need a ton of stuff that just isn't produced by my local community or the government—cars, computers, phones... even bananas. And look, I’m not gonna pretend I don't care where all that gear actually comes from. It’s impossible to function without it. Plus, I've got capital invested out in the global market that brings in my income, so yeah—I'm pretty much tied to the "big wide world" too.

Look, I’m not trying to play God here—it's not my job to sit around and dictate what everyone else's "essential" needs should be just because they're out there hunting for coupons and reward points.
Self-sufficiency isn't some absolute thing—I'm not talking about "survivalist mode" or training for Navy SEALs or whatever.
If you can handle even a fraction of your needs locally (food, power, etc.), that's already huge.
Look, I’m just presenting a possibility here... not some "magic bullet" solution for everyone.

This wasn't just another hippie commune from the 60s—to actually build something like this, you need serious sweat equity and a constant fight against local zoning boards and red tape.
But clearly, the people involved had the drive to make it happen.

The truth about modern communes

The truth about modern communes Quote : Wimbush concludes, looking out of his window at the rolling countryside below, you might try asking yourself what's really important: "For me, living in a beautiful forest garden, surrounded by my family, is infinitely more rewarding than living in the rat-race could ever be. And that is a choice open to everybody..."

If I'm existentially tied to what happens on our planet, then to me, that constitutes an organic community. The fact that I can't feel an emotional connection to this massive global community the same way I do with my own family doesn't change the reality of it.

Your take on functional vs. existential connectedness sounds a lot like Durkheim. He also argued that the modern world—with its crazy advanced division of labor—has an "organic" type of connection, unlike the "mechanical" connections we saw in pre-modern times.

Honestly, this isn't quite clicking for me... mostly because management is such a big deal, and that's not just a technicality. I'm leaning more toward Ferdinand Tönnies, the guy who shaped German sociology, with his distinction between two types of communities: 'Gemeinschaft'—those organic ones like family, clans, or small towns—and 'Gesellschaft'—the political ones like corporations or the state.
Emotional ties play a massive role in building that sense of mutual reliance, shared goals, and a "common destiny"... and you just can't expect that kind of thing in purely political organizations.
Individual vs. Collective in Philosophy ·
Ethan Gomez82 said:The sense of community is definitely under threat, but I honestly don't see a cure for this particular ailment anytime soon.

Small communities in the past were organic and functional because they were self-sufficient. Their main business was farming and a few local trades. Trading with other towns was minimal, almost optional. Today, none of that remains, and small, organic communities just aren't possible anymore. Our needs have grown exponentially, and exchange is now global and constant. Today, the entire world functions as one massive, interdependent, organic community. It's a lot to wrap your head around, but that's just the reality.

We've been stuck in "band-aid" mode for way too long...

I think the massive screw-up is how people think... like, they assume some big authority—maybe in D.C. or some other major hub, if not the whole damn country—will just announce a new set of rules on prime-time TV one day and suddenly we have a new order.
If that actually happens—God forbid—it definitely won't be what I'm talking about.

I'm exaggerating here—not saying you think like that—just trying to say the "cure" is popping up in tons of different places... and it works locally.

Small-scale communities back in the day were organic and actually worked because they could hold their own. The main gig was growing food and maybe some basic local trades. They didn't need to trade much with anyone else; it wasn't even necessary. Today, none of that remains—small, organic communities aren't even possible anymore. Our needs are massive now, and everything is tied to intense, global exchange. Nowadays, the entire world acts like one giant, interconnected, functional community. It’s a lot to wrap your head around, but that's just the reality.

The world isn't an "organic community," not even politically... except maybe in the early stages (think international organizations). Organic communities are family, clans, tribes, small towns, neighborhoods, maybe a small startup... anything bigger than that is usually political.
We all know about globalization... but where we go from here is a toss-up. There are multiple scenarios out there, and some might even run side-by-side... one option is "commonization"—basically meeting most of your own needs right where you live using local resources. And honestly, current tech trends are actually making that happen.

Ethan Gomez82 said:Maybe it will, but does anyone actually want that? Historically, self-sufficient communities were born out of necessity, not because they were some utopia of choice and pleasure. Modern life proves that when people have the option, they choose to live outside of tightly knit groups. Human connections tend to become temporary and superficial.

Just because they were built out of necessity doesn't mean people weren't finding ways to satisfy deep needs that modern society fails to meet nearly as well.

I'm not going to sit here and tell anyone what they should want, whether they should join a community or be a "global citizen." One of the first things I ever posted here was that paper by Singelis & Gelfand & Triandis...

Horizontal & Vertical Individualism & Collectivism i dakle

Look, people aren't built the same—based on those typologies, everyone's looking for a totally different kind of "perfect" society. One person would feel suffocated in a tight-knit commune, while someone else would just wither away in a massive city like NYC, feeling completely isolated.
That’s exactly why I think arguing about one single "ideal" society for everyone is a total waste of breath.
We aren't clones. Maybe we're finally seeing a real shot at "intentional communities"... who knows.

Plus, let's be real: people pick what they can actually get their hands on. Choosing your "ideal" way of life isn't exactly like grabbing a bunch of bananas at Walmart.
We've all been conditioned by this crappy system... which basically "forces" us to see certain social structures as the only viable options.
I think you mentioned before—if I recall right—that your family was full of "individualists" where personal choice was strictly respected... so it makes total sense why you'd look at things through that lens.
Individual vs. Collective in Philosophy ·
hiddeneagle98 said:Personally, I'm holding out hope that some kind of breakthrough in technology might eventually allow us to build new versions of relatively self-sufficient communities.

Take this one example... near New York City, they're looking at finishing construction by 2018.

The 'Tesla of eco-villages' is developing off-grid villages that grow their own food and generate their own power

The company building and running these spots lets residents cut down their monthly bills by working on a farm managed by the company staff.

Every house gets its own yard where people can plant whatever they want.

Depending on the vibe—and obviously the location—these places hit about 50% to 100% of their own food needs...
depending on the geography, obviously.

Besides this specific project, just Google stuff like "intentional communities" or "eco villages" if you want a basic idea of what we're talking about...
But look, to actually get the full picture, you'd need more intel from people who have actually lived in them, etc.

For instance, check out
10 Utopian Intentional Communities with Distinct Values

Naturally, how much comfort you get compared to modern living standards varies wildly...
Individual vs. Collective in Philosophy ·
Taylor Edwards80 said:The divide between the individual and the collective is a false dichotomy—essentially just a theoretical foundation used to justify totalitarianism..

Wait, what?? Why??
Individual vs. Collective in Philosophy ·
Ethan Gomez82 said:People keep bringing up these "smaller communities," but I have to ask: what exactly are we talking about here? If you mean geographic borders, the whole conversation is pointless. Modern humanity doesn't live in small, isolated pockets anymore; we are an overwhelmingly urban species. Most people are packed into megacities with populations exceeding 10 million. Where is the "small community" in that? A single street? A neighborhood? My actual community—the people I actually know and interact with—is a scattered group spread across the entire country. In this era of seamless transport and instant digital connection, physical proximity isn't even a factor. On the flip side, I barely know the people living on my own block. I don't know their names or what they do for a living. Honestly, there might be neighbors I’ve never even laid eyes on. They could be right next door or a thousand miles away, and it wouldn't change a thing. Just because someone is physically near me doesn't mean they belong to my "community."

I get how things look right now... but I'm talking about the potential for things to go a different way down the road.
Apparently, some immigrant from last year's wave responded to a reporter by saying "networking doesn't build community." Basically, despite having a smartphone glued to their hand 24/7, that sense of belonging is still totally broken.
Look, we aren't all wired the same way, but for a huge chunk of people, "efficient transit and high-speed tech" is no substitute for actually feeling connected to a place... in a physical, local sense.

That doesn't mean I don't see your point, though...
Individual vs. Collective in Philosophy ·
Sam Martinez9 said:The level of democracy in a society isn't dictated by its size, but rather by the maturity of its collective consciousness.

Take the family unit, for instance. It can be—and historically has been, just as it remains in certain parts of the world today—an entirely authoritarian structure, despite being tiny compared to the state. You have a father who makes every single decision while the rest of the family simply complies without question. The same logic applies to a small town, a village, or even a major metropolis.

Generally speaking, if a society leans toward democracy, that tendency filters down through every segment: families, towns, rural areas. Conversely, if a system is authoritarian, that rigidity permeates every level of social organization.

Monarchies were authoritarian across the board; the family was autocratic, and so were the dynamics within villages and small towns. There was no semblance of democracy to be found.

Today, we see more democratic principles at play across all levels—from the household to the federal government—but we are still quite far from achieving true democracy. In fact, I’d argue we are still a long way from truly grasping what democracy even means.

Corporations serve as another perfect example that scale is irrelevant to governance. Most companies operate on a strictly authoritarian principle where employees follow the owner or a manager appointed by the owner without question, regardless of whether it is a massive conglomerate like Amazon or a local mom-and-pop shop.

I never said size, population density, or raw numbers were the *only* things defining a political system's vibe.

There are plenty of reasons why, say, Athens and Sparta didn't have the same social setup...
But let's be real—massive countries (territory-wise and population-wise) have almost always been run by autocrats throughout history.

Sure, lately, liberal ideals have been seeping into smaller, tight-knit communities and shifting individual and social mindsets.

But I think the point of Rousseau's argument is that you can't expect democracy to actually kick off inside massive, authoritarian despotisms.

Actually... when you look at modern political "unions" like the European Union trying to force rapid integration and tighter control, management issues just blow up... and democratic processes fall apart because they just can't stay efficient.
Individual vs. Collective in Philosophy ·
Sam Martinez9 said:A thought experiment:

Picture this: eight billion people are split into tiny clusters of about a thousand or two, scattered across the cosmos. Each group ends up in its own separate galaxy. Now, imagine they have zero way to communicate with other groups, and they can never grow larger than their initial size—no matter how much they try, they stay capped at those first thousand or two people.

So, you’re left with these micro-societies of a thousand or two souls who must rely entirely on themselves, their own specialized knowledge, and their own limited resources.

What happens to these little pockets of humanity in the next generation? Two or three generations down the line?

And what about ten generations from now?

Here’s my rebuttal to addx...
...from the previous page.

I'm not even talking about total isolation here—the whole point is increasing how much an individual can actually influence their own life.
And you get way more leverage in a small community—one that, mind you, still respects human rights as a concept born from the evolution of larger political societies.

So, I'm not suggesting we just literally replay history; I mean more like a spiral—leveling up to a higher stage.

Besides, this kind of thing has already happened in our history...
Individual vs. Collective in Philosophy ·
hiddeneagle98 said:Look, you know I'm totally on board with his logic regarding democracy needing those tight-knit, smaller circles to actually function... but as for the rest of it—the idea that bigger countries inevitably slide into oligarchy or tyranny—I think I'll need to chew on that for a bit before I decide if I buy it.🙂

I hear ya...

When it comes to massive societies, I think that's where Freudian technological advancement really steps up—acting as a conditional backbone for democratic processes and liberalism... provided tech access stays relatively even across the population.

Regarding this "small town without research labs" idea (looking at you, Sam Martinez9)—there’s zero reason to isolate small communities. They can just share certain "centers of excellence."
Plus, tech can be developed toward actual self-sufficiency—it happens today—where locals handle the basic stuff while the big players run the high-end gear.
Individual vs. Collective in Philosophy ·
What do you guys think about this take from Jean-Jacques Rousseau...

He basically argued that democracy only works in tiny communities where everyone actually knows one another. For mid-sized nations? He says you need oligarchies—but once you hit those massive, huge-scale societies, he thinks it's nothing but dictatorships.
Individual vs. Collective in Philosophy ·
hiddeneagle98 said:Alright, that’s actually exactly what I was getting at when I wrote my post, though I wasn't going quite as far as that extreme example involving predators.

Sure, unchecked greed can be uncomfortable, but the alternative is just as unpleasant. Being an economic North Korea is also a pretty awkward way to run a society.

It really boils down to capitalism versus communism. In a capitalist system, you have this "permissible"—if not outright encouraged—individual greed that acts as a massive engine for progress. In a communist setup, that exact same drive gets smothered either by strict laws or through constant social pressure and "greed shaming" (🤣), which is why that forward momentum was clearly missing from all those communist nations. Even China is basically moving forward by playing a game of semi-capitalism and lifting ideas, patents, and tech from established Western powers.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not exactly preaching one ideology over the other here; I think both sides have their flaws and their truths. To me, any functional solution always has to be some kind of delicate compromise between individual drive and the collective good.

I think I mentioned this somewhere in the Religion thread... how you can’t just call that kind of compromise "balance." It’s really about being caught between two worlds—needing those tight-knit local communities that actually give people a sense of belonging (something our massive, disconnected global society totally fails at these days) versus being part of the broader world where ideas and experiences actually flow.

Life in Salem—minus all that witch-burning nonsense...

It’s all about how things shift and adapt... look, one extreme is total stagnation—think of it like social relations freezing solid until they hit absolute zero—while the other is just pure chaos, like gas atoms bouncing around everywhere with zero connection.

Look, we've gotta preserve these different layers of social structure... unless we somehow manage to build actual community with billions of random people—which, let's be real, I seriously doubt.

Historically speaking, when you look at the whole community level, America is a prime example of civilization hitting that perfect "Goldilocks" zone—not too close, not too far from those ancient cradles of civilization.
How is a zone like that even going to work in the future... honestly, who knows?

Anyway, 👍 Starting a new thread.
lonebadger6 said:Doesn't exist? Man, you just shut out basically half the political spectrum there—nice job. Look, I get that it’s impossible for absolutely nobody to feel left behind, but avoiding this constant political polarization is actually doable if people would just listen—I already laid out how to do it.

I’m a believer—but don't go labeling me as right-wing or left-wing—I'm just staying out of that whole mess entirely...
So, am I shamelessly hiding behind "free speech" now? Look, I hate getting into fights—really, I do—but I’m sick of being backed into a corner on this forum and told I should be embarrassed just for having an opinion.

Look, bottom line—I’m never posting anything here that I wouldn't have the guts to say straight to someone's face.

Look, if you can actually pull together a decent life for yourself and your family through hard work—without relying on handouts—then local issues become things you tackle alongside your neighbors. In a country where politicians aren't just some parasitic pyramid scheme you have zero control over (and no, I’m not counting that ritual of tossing a ballot in a box every four years), they at least pretend to care about the jobs they were elected to do. It leads to way less frustration and way less blaming certain groups for your own miserable situation.

Am I making sense?

So how do you even make sense of this sudden explosion of violence in the US—like, fifty years after World War II? Especially in a society that never actually "let things go" when it comes to those leftover, radical counter-revolution vibes...

There isn't some massive explosion of violence happening; there’s just an explosion of media coverage where every single incident gets dragged out until people walk away with this false impression that things are more dangerous now than they ever were...

Hardly any country on earth today isn't dealing with levels of violence and homicide that are essentially the same as they were twenty or thirty years ago.

Terrorism is the outlier, though even that was rampant back in the seventies and eighties before things briefly quieted down...
There isn't some massive explosion of violence happening; there’s just an explosion of media coverage where every single incident gets dragged out until people walk away with this false impression that things are more dangerous now than they ever were...

Hardly any country on earth today isn't dealing with levels of violence and homicide that are essentially the same as they were twenty or thirty years ago.

Terrorism is the outlier, though even that was rampant back in the seventies and eighties before things briefly quieted down...
There isn't some massive explosion of violence happening; there’s just an explosion of media coverage where every single incident gets dragged out until people walk away with this false impression that things are more dangerous now than they ever were...

Hardly any country on earth today isn't dealing with levels of violence and homicide that are essentially the same as they were twenty or thirty years ago.

Terrorism is the outlier, though even that was rampant back in the seventies and eighties before things briefly quieted down...
There isn't some massive explosion of violence happening; there’s just an explosion of media coverage where every single incident gets dragged out until people walk away with this false impression that things are more dangerous now than they ever were...

Hardly any country on earth today isn't dealing with levels of violence and homicide that are essentially the same as they were twenty or thirty years ago.

Terrorism is the outlier, though even that was rampant back in the seventies and eighties before things briefly quieted down...
There isn't some massive explosion of violence happening; there’s just an explosion of media coverage where every single incident gets dragged out until people walk away with this false impression that things are more dangerous now than they ever were...

Hardly any country on earth today isn't dealing with levels of violence and homicide that are essentially the same as they were twenty or thirty years ago.

Terrorism is the outlier, though even that was rampant back in the seventies and eighties before things briefly quieted down...
There isn't some massive explosion of violence happening; there’s just an explosion of media coverage where every single incident gets dragged out until people walk away with this false impression that things are more dangerous now than they ever were...

Hardly any country on earth today isn't dealing with levels of violence and homicide that are essentially the same as they were twenty or thirty years ago.

Terrorism is the outlier, though even that was rampant back in the seventies and eighties before things briefly quieted down...
I was talking about the American Wars...

It’s not just about the raw numbers or how many murders are happening—it’s about that gut feeling we all have, you know? Like, from the perspective of an average person on the street, does it actually feel like things are getting better or are we just sliding backward?
lonebadger6 said:Yeah, except that first figure isn't even remotely accurate—the percentage might be high, but I can't recall the exact study right now, though it definitely wasn't 99%—so I countered with a study from America where the percentages were almost identical for people refusing to let their daughters marry a Mexican, a Muslim, or a Black man, and so on...

But given the context you're pointing out regarding how "liberals" react differently to each situation, you aren't wrong...

Collins — I agree looking at the global scale, but honestly, it makes sense that we worry about our own backyard first... Of course, as a citizen of the world, I'm not totally indifferent to what's happening in Saudi Arabia or North Korea, but I'm just significantly more concerned about the society I actually live in...

The problem is that our own "backyard" is becoming way too tied to everything happening globally—and now, the average American is the one getting stuck with the bill for all this foreign policy mess.

So you guys aren't fans of uncontrolled, mass immigration? Whatever—it’s got its reasons and it isn't just some random act of nature.
There are these supposed "intellectuals" out there throwing around big ideas... like instead of just shoving displaced people into refugee camps "next door," we should actually help them build productive little towns while they wait for the war in their home country to finally die down.
I’d add this—the money in arms manufacturing and trade is absolutely massive. Honestly, if people actually give a damn about being politically correct, they should be out there protesting that whole "devilish petrodollar-military-industrial complex" triangle.

lonebadger6 said:Well, that is precisely where the trouble starts... 🙂

It is incredibly easy to frame something in a way that convinces the masses that a lie is actually the truth, and that’s where the danger lies...

If you want to take it a step further, there's an ever-growing crowd of lunatics convinced the Earth is flat. There are endless YouTube videos and forum threads where proponents toss out "arguments" that anyone without a specialized education would swallow whole, which is unfortunately how most people operate. Between the vaccine hysteria, the flat Earth stuff, and the idea that the world is only a few thousand years old...

Now, I’m not saying we should literally ban someone from claiming the Earth is flat, but I am pointing out that the truth doesn't always surface... Look at the anti-vax movement—based on a single unscientific study that the author himself retracted decades ago, you now have entire movements of people convinced vaccines are killing their children, and we're already seeing the slow return of diseases we thought were practically wiped out...

I'm not suggesting we should outlaw people calling vaccines murder—even if spreading those lies isn't exactly harmless—but in that same vein, someone could just as easily convince thousands upon thousands of people that the Jew is filth that needs to be eradicated before they eradicate us...

Just read this killer article—I can dig up the link if anyone wants it—where these liberal authors basically lay it all out: a huge chunk of people's biases aren't even about how much school they finished... it’s actually driven by ideology and personal interests.
Plus, in today’s world of hyper-specialization—look at America, for example—so many people are basically clueless about anything outside their own tiny little bubble. It's honestly pathetic.
Let’s be real—hardly anyone actually uses evolutionary theory in their day-to-day work outside of their tiny little bubble. Between that, how vaccines actually function, and global warming... it's all just matters of faith, like Morgan Cook10 was saying.
Maybe they’re solid arguments—well-defended and all—but at the end of the day, it's still faith. (And look, I'm a believer myself, but I'm with the folks who think you can actually make it work alongside Darwin.)

lonebadger6 said:Sure, but you’re clearly the rational one here... Thousands of people will just swallow it whole without a second thought, living their entire lives convinced it’s nothing more than another massive Jew lie. That's the real issue...

Plus... a lot of this boils down to the total breakdown of trust between the elites and the everyday person. When society moves forward, regular people believe their kids will have it better than they did... and that trust extends right into the school curriculum.

Once that seed of doubt and insecurity gets planted... everything starts getting questioned. "The powers that be" turn into enemies... and people start hunting for anyone they think is a "servant to the plutocracy."

I'm telling you... fix the root cause... while there's still time.
silentviper19 said:Well, I was talking about the liberal/leftist crowd that has sort of lost the plot by going overboard with media political correctness, while simultaneously defending Islam as if it’s somehow the peak of democratic values.
Then, on the flip side, you’ve got these right-wing populists and religious types who shamelessly weaponize "freedom of speech."
There isn't really a third option—you know, those moderate folks who actually have the sense to find a balance where nobody feels left behind or insulted.

I don't quite follow what you meant about having an influence on our lives and mechanisms reducing frustration? Could you be a bit more specific there?

It's been a long time since WWII, which was the big wake-up call that forced fascists, religious zealots, and hard-right types to settle down, seeing as their history is soaked in blood.
But, man, time flies. People tend to forget, or maybe they just got a little too comfortable with the freedom that came after all that chaos. Now, because we’ve moved past that bloody, tyrannical era, these religious and right-wing populists are back at it, hiding behind "free speech." They act like total victims, playing the martyr because they claim "militant gays and feminists" are stopping them from expressing their hate—or, as they love to put it, "stifling their liberty."

Doesn't exist? Man, you just shut out basically half the political spectrum there—nice job. Look, I get that it’s impossible for absolutely nobody to feel left behind, but avoiding this constant political polarization is actually doable if people would just listen—I already laid out how to do it.

I’m a believer—but don't go labeling me as right-wing or left-wing—I'm just staying out of that whole mess entirely...
So, am I shamelessly hiding behind "free speech" now? Look, I hate getting into fights—really, I do—but I’m sick of being backed into a corner on this forum and told I should be embarrassed just for having an opinion.

Look, bottom line—I’m never posting anything here that I wouldn't have the guts to say straight to someone's face.

silentviper19 said:Well, I was talking about the liberal/leftist crowd that has sort of lost the plot by going overboard with media political correctness, while simultaneously defending Islam as if it’s somehow the peak of democratic values.
Then, on the flip side, you’ve got these right-wing populists and religious types who shamelessly weaponize "freedom of speech."
There isn't really a third option—you know, those moderate folks who actually have the sense to find a balance where nobody feels left behind or insulted.

I don't quite follow what you meant about having an influence on our lives and mechanisms reducing frustration? Could you be a bit more specific there?

It's been a long time since WWII, which was the big wake-up call that forced fascists, religious zealots, and hard-right types to settle down, seeing as their history is soaked in blood.
But, man, time flies. People tend to forget, or maybe they just got a little too comfortable with the freedom that came after all that chaos. Now, because we’ve moved past that bloody, tyrannical era, these religious and right-wing populists are back at it, hiding behind "free speech." They act like total victims, playing the martyr because they claim "militant gays and feminists" are stopping them from expressing their hate—or, as they love to put it, "stifling their liberty."

Look, if you can actually pull together a decent life for yourself and your family through hard work—without relying on handouts—then local issues become things you tackle alongside your neighbors. In a country where politicians aren't just some parasitic pyramid scheme you have zero control over (and no, I’m not counting that ritual of tossing a ballot in a box every four years), they at least pretend to care about the jobs they were elected to do. It leads to way less frustration and way less blaming certain groups for your own miserable situation.

Am I making sense?

silentviper19 said:Well, I was talking about the liberal/leftist crowd that has sort of lost the plot by going overboard with media political correctness, while simultaneously defending Islam as if it’s somehow the peak of democratic values.
Then, on the flip side, you’ve got these right-wing populists and religious types who shamelessly weaponize "freedom of speech."
There isn't really a third option—you know, those moderate folks who actually have the sense to find a balance where nobody feels left behind or insulted.

I don't quite follow what you meant about having an influence on our lives and mechanisms reducing frustration? Could you be a bit more specific there?

It's been a long time since WWII, which was the big wake-up call that forced fascists, religious zealots, and hard-right types to settle down, seeing as their history is soaked in blood.
But, man, time flies. People tend to forget, or maybe they just got a little too comfortable with the freedom that came after all that chaos. Now, because we’ve moved past that bloody, tyrannical era, these religious and right-wing populists are back at it, hiding behind "free speech." They act like total victims, playing the martyr because they claim "militant gays and feminists" are stopping them from expressing their hate—or, as they love to put it, "stifling their liberty."

So how do you even make sense of this sudden explosion of violence in the US—like, fifty years after World War II? Especially in a society that never actually "let things go" when it comes to those leftover, radical counter-revolution vibes...
silentviper19 said:And honestly, that’s probably where we're headed, unfortunately.

There are moments when all this PC stuff really gets under my skin—mostly because of how the media handles it and all those weird little linguistic gymnastics they pull... it's exhausting. But then I look at what's happening globally and see who the loudest "free speech" warriors actually are, and I find myself leaning toward certain restrictions. Yeah, I said it. I'll take some level of PC if it keeps us from ending up with the exact mess you shared in your link.

It reminds me of how the local "free speech" crowd here usually complains: "'Screw this whole democratic thing if I can't say a word against these radicals, traitors, or whatever else without some activist showing up to try and shut me down.'"

Not sure which global trends you're talking about here.

As far as things go locally—or anywhere else, really—having any actual influence over your living conditions and how the system runs helps dial down that frustration.

Reducing every social issue to just being "pro" or "anti" PC is basically like trying to put out a campfire with a flamethrower.
Chris Myers said:What would be the absolute antithesis of today's political correctness?
Maybe something like this?

Nah, it was just a different flavor of "political correctness"—one where the Nazis were the ones deciding what was acceptable and what wasn't.

It’s simple—whoever holds the power decides what's "correct."
The weird thing about the current trend is how much it relies on media control... they grab power and shape public opinion bit by bit, hiding their influence within institutions instead of making it obvious.

Maybe those college campuses and "safe zones" in the USA get talked about because things feel more open there.

When "practicing democracy" in a society boils down to nothing more than keyboard warrior hyperventilating—all talk with zero actual action or accountability—that’s basically fertile ground for PC culture.

So, if you ask me, the answer to the original question would be... questioning the state of Western democracy and liberalism right now, and actually looking at the root causes instead of just hunting for more "enemies."

Developing direct democracy—I don't mean some global decree, but more grassroots initiatives at the local level—helps stop the constant seesaw between the elites and populists.

There's plenty of talk lately about sociocracy, collective intelligence, and "digital democracy." Some of it is actually being put to use, at least locally.
Amanda Allen4 said:Political correctness is nothing more than a pathetic lie—something an honest man simply won't touch. Basic decency in our social interactions should be more than enough! For instance, you wouldn't tell a hunchback he has a stunning physique, nor would you feel the need to broadcast the blunt truth about their appearance to the world.

Signature... 👍

The whole point of political correctness is trying to force social change by policing language, but let's be real—swapping out one word for another doesn't actually change what anyone thinks.
People still hold the same views; they just move them from public conversations to private ones.

Plus, PC is just a tool for political warfare—it's nothing more than a "cheap and dirty" weapon used in politics.
placidorca16 said:
You just jumped right into my argument with brisknomad13—who was already trying to trash Bruno's scientific legitimacy and contributions by claiming he dealt in "magic, hermeticism, and occultism" and basically insisting "he wasn't a scientist," etc. It’s still totally unclear what you're actually trying to accomplish by repeating yourself over and over, unless you're secretly trying to justify the Inquisition's trial? But hey, thanks a lot, you've already said more than enough. I can draw my own conclusions from that. No need to go any further.

Look, I'm just trying to steer clear of both political idolatry and the demonization of Giordano Bruno—basically, just sticking to the facts.

Both idolatry and demonization rely on half-truths and lies.

Anyone calling me an apologist for the Inquisition is clearly blinded by some ideological or political agenda.

The truth is, Giordano Bruno was burned for political reasons.

And let's be real—nobody supports those political motives centuries later... like rebuilding the union of the Spanish and Austrian branches of the Habsburg feudal house, or restoring a Catholic empire "where the sun never sets"?
Or crushing the Reformation?

If we're supposed to be having a serious discussion here, then calling this PDF "Close Politician" is a massive understatement—the old title was way more accurate.

I'm done going back and forth with you.

brisknomad13 said:
Regarding the topic of the abolition of religious education, believers on this forum are being insulted—specifically by having the actions of past church officials pinned on them personally.
If the moderators actually cared about the dignity of this forum and maintaining decent civil discourse, they wouldn't allow these kinds of ad hominem attacks.

I'm with @brisknomad13 on this request to the moderators...
Is the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy actually legit?

Copernicus

Pope Clement VII actually seemed pretty into that talk about Copernicus's theories back in the day.They actually rewarded the speaker with a rare manuscript—can you believe that? We don't have any clue how Pope Paul II reacted to *On the Revolutions* since it was dedicated to him, but apparently, a close advisor named Bartolomeo Spinola (1474–1546) was totally planning to condemn the thing. He was going to go after it, but he fell ill and passed away before he could pull it off (check out Rosen, 1975). So, back in 1600, the Catholic Church didn't even have an official stance on the Copernican system—it definitely wasn't considered heresy back then. When Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake as a heretic, it actually had zero to do with him backing Copernican cosmology. You can see that pretty clearly in Finocchiaro's reconstruction of the accusations against Bruno. Check out Blumenberg’s third part, chapter 5—it's called “Not a Martyr for Copernicanism: Giordano Bruno.”

Just another "crackpot"...

The Genesis of the Copernican World

Giordano Bruno basically needed Copernicus's heliocentric system just to back up his own theological beef with the KC—it gave him the leverage to challenge everything from Trinity dogmas to the divine nature of Jesus, and so on.

Look, I never once trashed Giordano Bruno or what he did to kickstart modern thinking—so let's get that straight.

Nah, let's not even get into more deep dives for the PŽK... honestly, what am I even supposed to be ashamed of?

If I’ve got nothing to hide, then shouldn't the one spreading lies be the one feeling the shame? Seriously.

How does this forum handle slander according to the rules?