Posts by Lisa Jackson7

I mean, if we start acting like Giordano Bruno was burned just for "opposing science," then people are going to use that as an excuse to label everything the Church has ever done—past or present—as totally unacceptable or "socially harmful."
The whole goal would be to lump the Church's political role back in the 1500s together with how it functions today... and once they get that momentum, they’ll claim they shouldn't even be allowed to "intervene in public education" anymore.

placidorca16 Lisa Jackson7 said:
Are you seriously not even a little bit embarrassed to bring up the whole "objective evaluation" thing regarding Mr. Bruno?? You didn't even bother explaining any actual historical context—you just straight-up claimed that Bruno was—Not even a scientist.".

I think that it is... Pure ad hominem—total lies. What you're claiming about Bruno—that he... Not even a scientist.Like I already stated and confirmed right here:
I can't believe people are actually buying into this—seriously, give me a break! It’s like some folks just refuse to look at the actual facts right in front of them. Honestly, it's exhausting watching everyone jump to conclusions without doing any real digging first.

Should they even feel any shame? Using a crackpot source??

Encyclopedia of Philosophy Quote

So, about the Encyclopedia of Philosophy Quote—it’s actually legit. The staff of editors includes folks with doctorates and professors from universities all over, especially in English-speaking countries. Basically, it's great.

Launched back in '95, the Encyclopedia of Philosophy aims to give everyone open access to deep, scholarly dives into major philosophical topics and thinkers. This thing doesn't take any outside funding—it runs entirely on the grit of volunteer editors, authors, and tech folks. Even so, they pull in over a million visitors a month and nearly 20 million page views annually. The Encyclopedia is free. Plus, the staff of editors includes about 300 authors who all hold doctorates and teach at universities globally, mainly in English-speaking countries.

Renaissance Philosophy

Bruno went way more radical with his cosmology—and man, that guy was a non-stop writing machine. His most significant works cover everything from the art of memory and Ramon Llull's combinatory method to those moral dialogues like *The Expulsion of the Triumphant Beast* (1584), *The Kabbalah of the Pegasean Horse* (1585), and *The Heroic Frenzies* (1585). Most of what makes him famous actually comes down to those three cosmological dialogues he dropped back in 1584: *The Ash Wednesday Supper*, *On the Cause, the Principle and the One*, and *Universe and the Worlds*. In those pieces—drawing a ton of inspiration from Lucretius, the Neoplatonists, and especially Nicholas of Cusa—he really builds out this super coherent, intense version of ontological monism. He basically sees individual beings as just little accidents or modes of one single, massive substance—the universe itself. He describes it as this living, breathing thing that stretches out forever and holds countless different worlds inside it. Bruno adhered to Copernicus's cosmology but took it way further—he actually proposed an infinite universe. Sure, he didn't invent the idea of infinity itself, but he was the first guy to drop a heliocentric system right into the middle of infinite space. It didn't go well, obviously. In 1600, the Inquisition burned him at the stake just for his heretical teachings.

While these New philosophies of Nature certainly paved the way for what we now call early modern thought, their methods just couldn't keep up with the rapid scientific breakthroughs happening at the time. The methodology of Galileo was fundamentally rooted in math. Plus, this whole era of discovery was driven by rigorous observation and hands-on testing—think about Galileo using his telescope or running those experiments with inclined planes. Sure, when thinkers like Telesio, Campanella, Patrizi, and Bruno started tearing apart Aristotle's old teachings, it definitely shook things up, but it was really the new philosophy emerging in the early 1600s that finally killed off the Aristotelian way of seeing the world and kicked off a whole new era.

You still haven't actually given me any of those extra "explanations" I asked for regarding your claim that Bruno "wasn't a scientist." So, honestly, I don't see the point in you constantly harping on how he "wasn't a scientist" or was just a "philosophical speculator," etc. It makes me wonder—what's the goal behind you (and brisknomad13) pushing these wrong ideas about Mr. Bruno? Since philosophy *is* a science, just like the math and physics he worked on, are you just trying to find a way to justify the Inquisition's treatment of him? You still haven't answered that.

Look, Bruno wasn't a scientist in the same league as Johannes Kepler or Galileo; despite knowing his math, he never actually tied it to experimental work—which he didn't even bother doing.
Even Copernicus blew him out of the water in that department...

It was a transition period, moving from the Renaissance toward the Enlightenment, where science—then called "natural philosophy"—was slowly breaking away from pure philosophy.

Giordano Bruno was an incredible, brilliant mind in plenty of ways, but you're clearly only interested in how radically he clashed with the Church. To make that case, people felt they had to credit him with a fully developed, proven scientific theory about the movement of Earth or the idea of an "infinite number of worlds"... mostly just to paint the Church as the "enemy of progress."

Bruno didn't get sentenced because of science; it was because of his theological attacks (heresy) and the way he implicitly challenged the Church as an institution... all happening right before the Thirty Years' War.

Philosophy isn't a science—not since the 19th century, anyway—even if it's deeply tied to various scientific branches. That's not even up for debate. And obviously, when I mention "philosophical speculation," I'm not being condescending, nor am I attacking philosophy itself.

I don't even get why you're quoting the Official Gazette; that's just about how academic institutions are organized... what does that have to do with the actual definition of the relationship between philosophy and science?

I honestly have no clue how you can justify the insults you keep throwing around...

Moderators??

On topic.
Abolition of religious education in schools—seriously? Just what we need right now. I reported placidorca16 on the forum yesterday because of these claims...

I can't believe people actually fall for this—seriously, how do you even listen to this nonsense? It’s just pure delusion at this point.

Oh, come on, give me a break... Still out there looking for excuses for the Inquisition's persecution? Seriously? Along with all the haters trying to trash Bruno's contribution to science? Seriously? Are you guys actually serious right now?? Have you no shame at all!!?? 👎😠

By the way— Philosophy is a science too—period.Look, you clearly don't have a clue—you just want to play judge and jury on stuff you know nothing about. I'm sure, on the flip side, you've got zero issues with theology being shoved into "humanities," to the point where they actually managed to label religious education at the University of Chicago Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences as "scientific." Unbelievable! But let me guess—on that specific point, you're totally fine with it.😁 What hypocrites!

Look, this whole debate is happening over in the Politics PDF—not History or Religion—but honestly, who cares? It’s just a straight-up ad hominem attack at this point. First off, I’m only answering for what I actually wrote, which was just a take on Giordano Bruno's historical impact and significance, plus a note that we really need to judge him objectively.

It feels like I’m lowkey making excuses for why they burned Giordano Bruno!!

Explaining the historical context isn't an excuse!!

Also, the idea that philosophy counts as a science—just like the natural or social sciences—is super sketchy to me (even if they are definitely linked), but look, the main point for this post is... placidorca16 is over here trying to pin "my views" on the current drama at the University of Chicago Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences and FF, which I haven't even addressed yet...

What’s next? Some kind of twisted banquet where we "safely" justify crowning Matija Gubec with thorns right before they execute him??

Honestly, this whole thread has gone totally off the rails over the last few pages... maybe we should just save that talk for the discussion about KC's political moves?

Harold Martin10 said:A globalized world has always been a step up from a non-globalized one. When you say "we know how this ends," you seem to be overlooking the fact that "how it ended" previously—essentially a state of perpetual warfare—was actually quite the norm for Europe in its "local" era. The last 70 years have been a massive outlier, and honestly, it isn't just an issue for Europe. Historians often point the finger at the USA when discussing WWI and WWII, arguing they failed to step into the role of the global policeman that naturally belonged to them as the preeminent superpower at the time.

As for the working class in developed nations—let’s be honest, they live better than the vast majority of people on this planet. Because of that, perhaps there could be a shift away from pure materialism toward finding fulfillment in other areas of life? Sadly, I don't see that happening anytime soon. And if those material desires and the constant hunger for "more" are truly that overwhelming, well—there is always more education, more effort, and more work to be done.

The reality is that growth rates fueled by cheap Chinese and Indian labor simply weren't sustainable. It was an artificial situation, and eventually, the market had to correct itself by raising labor costs. To make matters worse for the working class, we hit a second shock: the crisis caused by everyone collectively pretending nothing was wrong. We had banks handing out bad loans, governments turning a blind eye, and borrowers acting like the money was free. So, you had one unsustainable period of cheap labor followed immediately by another unrealistic period where society was essentially spending its future prosperity today. Everyone got used to a high standard of living, and now, through some strange miracle, they’re shocked and blaming globalization for it.

Just a little side note...

Here are a few things I heard from friends and family back when the crisis first hit the USA:
1. "The administration is on great terms with the Germans and Austrians; they’ll bail us out if a crisis hits here."
2. "Our big corporate leaders will pull us through this mess."
3. "There is no crisis as long as the construction sites are busy."
4. "The crisis is only happening in the USA; what does that have to do with us?"

And a few things said once the crisis actually arrived:
1. "It's the central banker's fault; he should have just printed more money to fund the budget and kickstart consumption (he's not the only one who can do that)."
2. "Employers are to blame for low wages—if every boss doubled their employees' pay, they'd see higher profits and everyone would be better off."
3. "There is no crisis, the goods are all there—the wealthy are just playing games with us."

If the working class truly wants to return to the era before 1945, they certainly possess the political power to make it happen. But then again, those who don't learn from history are destined to repeat it. At the very least, historians will have plenty to write about after humanity manages to tear itself apart once again.

Look, globalization itself isn't the issue for me... it's hard to deny its logic or even its fairness in certain ways. The real goal should be mitigating and making its costs politically tolerable—making it sustainable. Beyond just national governments, international organizations actually have this on their "job description."

I mentioned "wild" globalization before WWI as a historical warning shot that we absolutely need to manage these processes somehow.

Dani Rodrik laid out a fascinating thesis in his 2011 book, "The Globalization Paradox"... he argues you can't simultaneously have deep globalization, democracy, and national sovereignty. You can pick any two, but trying to juggle all three is impossible.

He made his choice—which I agree with—by prioritizing democracy plus national sovereignty.

Democracies have a right to protect their social contracts, and when that right clashes with the demands of the global economy, those economic demands have to take a backseat.

Some might think this principle would kill off globalization, but it won't... My hope is that by the end of the book, I'll convince you that empowering national democracies will actually put the global economy on much firmer, healthier footing. That’s the ultimate paradox of globalization: a thin layer of international rules that still leaves plenty of room for national governments to maneuver is better globalization. These rules act as a safeguard against the systemic failures of globalization while keeping the economic perks.
We need smart globalization, not maximalist globalization.

Here are a few things friends, acquaintances, or relatives said back when the crisis first hit the USA:
1. We're fine with the Germans and the Austrians; they'll bail us out if things get ugly here.
2. Big business will pull us through the crisis.
3. There is no crisis as long as construction is booming.
4. The crisis is only happening in the USA; what does that have to do with us?

And a few things people said once the crisis actually arrived:
1. It's the Fed's fault; they should have just printed more money to fund the budget and jumpstart spending (it wasn't just one guy's call).
2. Employers are to blame for low wages—if every boss doubled pay, they'd make more profit anyway and everyone would be better off.
3. There's no crisis, there's plenty of stuff on the shelves—the rich are just playing games with us.

Absolute pearls, but I honestly think most people learned something... some illusions finally shattered.

If the working class actually wants to claw its way back to how things were before 1945, they definitely have the political muscle to make it happen. But people who don't learn from history? They’re just asking to repeat it. At least historians will have plenty of material to chew on after humanity finishes slaughtering itself again.

Look, this isn't some "take it or leave it" situation... and I couldn't care less about whether we face another global catastrophe if people stay blind.

"Quote"

Harold Martin10 said:In my opinion, people who are constantly clamoring for radical change are just being naive.

What young people in The West are actually looking for is an improved standard of living. They seem to think globalization is the thing standing in their way, but they have it backward. The truth is, globalization was the very engine that drove up living standards over the last fifty years—largely because we could access incredibly cheap goods, which was only possible thanks to minimal regulation and dirt-cheap labor in countries that opened up to foreign capital, like China. Now, labor costs in those places are rising, yet these pampered, low-skilled workers in developed nations still expect Chinese laborers to work for pennies an hour. That is really the heart of the matter.

Low-skilled workers in The West can cry about it all they want—they can weep even harder than the ultra-leftists did after Trump won—but nothing is going to save them. At best, the growth of living standards in developed nations will be relatively slow. The real winners at the turn of the century were the people who, just 30 or 40 years ago, were struggling just to eat.

If they opt for populists, they are only going to end up hurting themselves even more. Just as a side note, I don't think Trump will deviate much from standard USA policy, so the average citizens in the USA shouldn't see any real damage there. However, Brexit is definitely going to have a negative impact on the British working class.

To kick things off... 🙄

"Quote:"

Young people in The West just want a decent standard of living—period. They’re convinced globalization is the one thing standing in their way.

It all comes down to who actually wants what... or rather, how you’re setting your priorities in the first place. Maybe it's just about chasing sustainable growth—you know, aiming for standards that aren't exactly skyrocketing, but at least they're steady instead of hitting zero.
Plus, what actually defines that "standard" anyway? What goes into quality of life? That’s exactly what the older generation—the ones who aren't exactly fresh out of college—are actually fighting for.

"Quote:"

Look, let's be real—globalization was the only reason everything stayed so cheap over the last 50 years. It worked because companies could dump capital into places like China where regulations were nonexistent and labor costs were basically nothing. Now that wages are actually rising there, these pampered, low-skilled workers in the West are throwing a fit because they can't get someone to work for fifty cents an hour anymore. That’s the whole damn game.

Look, it’s obvious—everyone’s looking out for number one, or more accurately, everyone just gives a damn about their own selfish interests. It’s just human nature.
So what now... we just tell these low-skilled workers to jump in the ocean or pack their bags for the Third World? Like, sure, try retraining them—we all know that’s easier said than done, and God knows who’s footing the bill—but honestly? It’s still a hell of a lot cheaper than watching our entire social fabric rip apart and dealing with a massive wave of nothing but precarious laborers and a permanent underclass.

"Quote:"

Low-skilled workers in The West can throw whatever tantrum they want—they’re gonna cry harder than those ultra-leftists did after Trump won—but nothing's gonna save them. At best, the standard of living in developed nations is just gonna crawl along. The real winners at the end of the 20th and start of the 21st century? The people who were starving just 30 or 40 years ago.

And those big winners you’re talking about? They won't stay on top for long if this "spontaneous" globalization keeps rolling. Globalization was already a massive global thing once before—back from the late 1800s right up until WWI.
We all know how that ended... You really think history isn't going to repeat itself? Maybe not in the exact same way, but things are still headed for a massive shitshow regardless.
The losers of globalization aren't just gonna sit around crying—if the elites keep playing blind, we're all gonna end up screaming together.

"Quote:"

If people vote for populists, they’re basically just digging their own graves—seriously. Honestly, I don't think Trump is actually going to deviate from standard USA policy all that much, so the average American shouldn't see any real damage there. But Brexit? That’s a whole different story—that's definitely going to screw over the British working class.

Look, I'm not saying Trump is gonna flip the script overnight either—but seriously, do you think the cost of globalization in The West is actually gonna drop? Or are we just looking at even higher prices for those "globalization winners" we've been talking about?

Jonathan Mendoza17 said:Well, being irrational is quite human! And I do wish people would at least pause to think. This whole "pulling the handbrake, spinning 180 degrees, and reversing" vibe? That’s exactly what Trump represents—he is the pure product of irrationality. Just look at the US election cycle; it’s the ultimate proof. They focus so much on Hillary that they push her as the only alternative, seemingly forgetting to rationally evaluate who Trump actually is or if there’s any substance behind his promises. And frankly, many of those promises are nonsense that only lead us backward. Moving manufacturing to China made goods accessible to the masses, sure, but now things are shifting again. On top of that, pushing certain groups out of the country is totally counterproductive—it fuels racist thinking and drives away productive people. You have plenty of lawyers, doctors, and hardworking, exemplary individuals among the Mexican community and others. Meanwhile, you certainly find criminals among immigrants from Europe too. I read just yesterday that Germany has already employed 50,000 refugees. Most of them aren't criminals or extremists; they're just regular people who were pillars of their own societies and are fleeing war. They're simply trying to save their lives, much like people fled from here during the war years. Trump, Farage, and the rest are just reopening old wounds to exploit the situation. It almost seems like Trump doesn't even want to be President or know what he'd do with America; he just ran to prove he could.

Brexit is an even better example of irrationality. Literally the day after the vote, voters start changing their minds, claiming they were misled or fell for media misinformation. Their reasoning was that foreigners were taking their jobs, yet in the end, they won't actually kick the foreigners out—they'll just lose jobs because so many companies will pull out of the VB to stay in the EU.

Liberalism has brought so much benefit to the modern world, and the ideology is mostly sound. People forget that we have never lived this well before; the problems we face didn't spring from liberalism, they've always been here—liberals just haven't found the fix yet. The conservatives coming up now are just trying to drag us back to the end of the last century. We've seen all their ideas and methods before, and we rejected them with disgust. As for their economics? It's just throwing sand in people's eyes; conservatives don't offer anything truly different from the status quo. Their real program is just attacking human rights and pushing for isolation. Conservatives can't make a "step forward" because they never actually took one—that's the very definition of conservative, isn't it? Being against change. In fact, that's the crux of it: conservatives never accepted the changes liberals brought, and now they just want to dismantle them. That isn't progress; it's a retreat.

Honestly, I feel like half the people supposedly attacking liberal values actually value liberalism more than the folks out there aggressively defending it... which is exactly what you're proving right now.

Integration in Sweden hasn't even come close to keeping pace with the massive wave of immigration over the last decade—if not longer.
Dr. Tino Sanandaji, a Swedish economist of Kurdish descent, sat down for a fascinating interview...

Sweden on the Brink? – An Interview with Dr. Tino Sanandaji

E. Tavares: Thanks for joining us. We wanted to dive into a pretty touchy subject right now—mass immigration in Sweden, something you’ve spent a ton of time researching. You've been vocal about some heavy concerns regarding current trends and where this is all heading.

We actually studied in your country back in the mid-90s and loved it. Even back then, there was a decent immigrant population, but for the most part, everyone just seemed to coexist. Middle Eastern girls dressed like any native origin Swedish Girl and were very open and friendly. Honestly, the only time we saw any real friction between groups was at a nightclub. So, what's actually shifted since then?

T. Sanandaji: I wouldn't say the actual relationship between migrants and native Swedes has fundamentally changed. If anything, things have improved slightly.

But look—back in 1990, non-European immigrants made up only about 3% of the population. Any issues were easy to isolate and handle within the broader social fabric. Now, that number has jumped to around 13-14%, and it's climbing by maybe 1-2 percentage points every year, alongside persistent gaps in wages, jobs, and schooling. It isn't about how deep the divides are; it's about the sheer scale of them.

You still have a sizeable number of Iranians , Iraqis and others who are fully integrated, dress like any Westerner, speak fluent Swedish and openly talk to anyone. That crowd is actually larger than it was in 1990. But then you have this other group—people living in ghettos who don't speak much Swedish, don't feel connected to society, struggle with unemployment, and so on. That specific group has exploded. Once a group hits a certain size, it starts impacting everything—schools, public spaces, the whole works.

AT a theoretical level There is an idea proposed by Professor Edward Lazear fra The Stanford business School where integration is a function of group size. When immigration is small, most people surrounding the newcomers are locals, making integration a natural, gradual social process: chatting with neighbors, working together, soaking up the culture, and picking up the language. But once that group reaches a "critical mass," you run into a problem. If you don't feel the need to integrate, you can just stay within your own community, work with other immigrants, and skip the language lessons entirely. It makes integration way harder.

Kyle Nelson2 said:So what you're saying is they aren't actually no-go zones, it's just that the police have basically decided to stop going there altogether? And when they finally do decide to roll in, they can't even show up without a massive escort of SWAT teams, the military, and armored vehicles... I guess that's one way to look at it. 😁

Yeah, pretty much... and if this whole immigration setup keeps going alongside a massive welfare state, those zones are just gonna stay put and spread—all while the host country loses its ability to actually assimilate anyone.

Brandon Gomez2 said:Now Brandon is asking if we consider ad hominem attacks to be a valid part of a debate?

Alright ladies and gentlemen—instead of all these random, half-baked comments from people with motives that even a sane person would call out of line—you've got this link to the original document that everyone here keeps claiming is proof the Swedish police have basically given up on controlling immigrant neighborhoods. I’m sitting here waiting for a translation!

This is the first and definitely the last time I'm dropping a link to a text written in a language I don't speak... so go ahead and mourn me now.

But, since my English is actually decent, I read through it—and honestly, while "no-go zones" might be considered too strong a term in this article... there are still these so-called semi-autonomous sectors.

Does Europe Have No-go Zones ?

I found that those areas "are not full-fledged no-go zones" --- meaning places where the government had lost control of territory. No war lords dominate; Shari'a is not the law of the land. I expressed regret back then for having used the term no-go zones.

So, what are these places? A unique and as-yet un-named mix.

West European governments often choose not to impose their will on Muslim-majority areas, allowing them considerable autonomy.

On the one hand, West European states can intervene anywhere and at any time in their sovereign territory. As the shoot-out in Verviers and the subsequent raids elsewhere in Belgium suggest, their overwhelming advantage in force – including military, intelligence, and police – means they have not ceded control.

On the other hand, governments often choose not to impose their will on Muslim-majority areas, allowing them considerable autonomy, including in some cases the Shariah courts that Emerson mentioned. Alcohol and pork are effectively banned in these districts, polygamy and burqas commonplace, police enter only warily and in force, and Muslims get away with offenses illegal for the rest of population.

I reckon Daniel Pipes—the American historian, writer, and head of the Middle East forum—is plenty respectable enough in this context...

Also, check out this little clip from the Swedish police... hope it isn't some deepfake nonsense. 😁

I don't know much about Swedish, but apparently, they're talking about those "no-go zones."

A national overview of criminal networks with major local community impact

Timothy Robinson78 said:If you don't want to take my word for it, just look at the data available online; it all supports my point. Human civilization has never seen such rapid progress as it has during the era of capitalism. Countries under a capitalist system consistently outperform socialist ones, offering higher standards of living, more robust human rights, better social safety nets, higher education rates, and superior healthcare systems.

Maybe give those facts some thought before you continue criticizing capitalism using your iPhone. 😁

If we’re going to have a conversation that isn't basically a toddler's picture book or some glossy ad pamphlet, we actually need to define what we mean by capitalism versus socialism—including all the different variations and how politics and economics have evolved together over time.

Timothy Robinson78 said:🤦

"Successful socialism" is an oxymoron.

So what you saying is... would China have actually fared better—whatever "better" even looks like—if the Kuomintang had won the civil war back in the late '40s?

Kyle Nelson2 said:I'm with you on this...
Christianity basically gutted the West because it prioritizes faith over actual reason, which was pretty much set in stone after the Council of Nicaea.
They started portraying priests as "shepherds" back around the 3rd century, and it hasn't stopped since (and if they're the shepherds, what does that make the rest of us?)

In a place like rural America, where those old traditions still run deep, you really see the damage it does...

Even before Christianity really took off, the ancient world was already spiraling—we're talking massive social upheaval, a huge surge in mysticism, all those Eastern cults moving in, and a slow economic death spiral, etc.
Look, regardless of what anyone wants to believe—it’s just an objective fact—Christianity is what actually saved the West.
The Greco-Roman world basically just waltzed right through the front door—or maybe more like a side entrance—of Christian theology anyway.
That Nigerian council was basically just a formality to rubber-stamp the alliance between Church and State... which, let’s be real, was pretty much inevitable given how things were playing out back then.

"Quote"

The whole "priest as a shepherd" thing started popping up around the 3rd century—and honestly, it hasn't budged since. Makes you wonder, though... if they’re the shepherds, what exactly does that make the rest of us? Since we’re such a deeply Catholic country with those old-school rural roots, it shows—and honestly, it’s working against us.

It was pretty much inevitable that hierarchy would seep into the Church... but let's not forget where we started—that original, egalitarian Christian vibe. At the end of the day, the whole concept of human value and equality actually stems from those Christian roots.

"Quote"

Melissa Rivera5 said:I mean, I guess there isn't much to say about it... maybe? Just feels like things are already laid out.

I mean, honestly? It’s just... everything. Everything about it. I guess there isn't really a better way to put it. kaže: Thank God we have capitalism out here in the West. I mean, people say things, but at least there isn't widespread starvation... though I guess seeing folks living in cardboard boxes in Detroit kind of complicates that whole idea, doesn't it? Maybe.

😁 Man, listen... under capitalism, yeah, some people struggle while others are loaded. But under communism? Nobody has anything. I mean, if you want actual proof, just look at what happened in Venezuela or North Korea. It’s pretty much a given. 🙂

Not even one... Honestly, the economy in America is doing great. You know how I know? Because people only bother getting together for protests or referendums when they're obsessing over who's sleeping with who or some other social stuff.🙂 I guess most people just don't care about the big stuff. Like, they'll overlook massive political corruption, having hundreds of thousands of people out of work, or our school system basically falling apart... even though we're dealing with some of the worst corruption levels in the West. It’s kind of wild. The conclusion? Apparently, none of that actually matters to anyone. 🙂 Why would I bother?

I guess I'm just saying... maybe we should look at this differently? Like, if you really think about how capitalism works in the US, things aren't always as black and white as they seem. I don't know, it's just a thought. Maybe I'm overthinking it, but it feels like there's more to the story.

I didn't even mention capitalism, though... I was just talking about communism. I mean, honestly, not a single country under a communist regime actually made it—they all just collapsed. But hey, I guess you don't see the issue there. And then somehow I'm the one with the brainwashed mind while you're over here seeing everything perfectly objectively. 🙂

I guess I don't really know how to put this, but... maybe? It’s just one of those things, I suppose.

I mean... honestly? It’s just all too much. Everything feels totally extra lately. kaže: I mean, honestly? I’d much rather just keep the money I actually earn instead of having someone else step in and take a cut of my hard work. Just feels more right, I guess.

Your own money? Under communism, you don't really have "your" money. It all belongs to everyone. And if you somehow manage to earn more through your own hard work, they’ll just take it away from you—you might even end up in court just for being too successful. I mean, who are you to decide what you deserve?

And how do you know that? You don't. You're just talking nonsense.

I mean, I'm mostly with you on how that old system looked—total mess—but saying nobody owned a damn thing in "real socialism" is just wrong.
The top brass—de facto if not de jure—basically walked away with a massive slice of the pie compared to the actual working class.
I mean, in some broke-ass society that claims to be all about equality, even the tiniest little privileges become huge deal-breakers—like having special supply lines just for the "deserving comrades" or whatever. It’s ridiculous.

Not a single one... Honestly, the economy in the States is doing just fantastic. You know how I know? Because the only time people actually bother to show up for protests or referendums is when they’re obsessing over who’s sleeping with who—or whatever other nonsense social drama is happening.🙂 Most people care way more about that than stuff like political corruption, having 400k people out of work, being one of the most corrupt spots in the West, or our schools falling apart—but apparently, none of that actually matters to anyone. 🙂 Why would I?

In America, we’ve got zero horizontal solidarity—it’s all just cronyism and top-down power plays. Though, honestly, those protests and referendums weren't just about stuff you think is irrelevant... look at the recent education reforms, that's a prime example.

Based on the movie "Green Mile" (1999)... which was based on that novel by Stephen King...

The guard, Paul, gets this gift—or maybe it's a curse—where he lives an insanely long life (we're talking like 500 years territory), but... he has to watch every single one of his friends die off one by one.

Paul talks about how he's haunted by the thought that "everyone owes death; there are no exceptions; but, God, sometimes the Green Mile seems so long." It leaves Paul wondering if Mr. Jingles could actually survive as long as a mouse really could—and just how much longer he’s stuck waiting for his own end.

Forget all those transhumanist (or whatever you want to call them) fantasies. Maybe the real point is just leaving something behind... whether it's kids we hope will live in a better world... or just leaving something good and precious, even if it's just a tiny bit...

Daniel Morales63 said:I’ve got a request for the mod team—and honestly, this affects pretty much everyone here.

Look, discussions here constantly spiral out of control and turn into a totally different topic—it’s a mess. Honestly, it's super rare for mods to actually put in the work to split things up—you know, taking all those off-topic rants and actually opening a fresh thread for them. Most just let it happen.

It’s way easier to just drop some genius observation like "you guys have been off-topic for the last 40 posts, so here's a ban for everyone" — and then, of course, wipe out those 40 posts that actually could've lived in one decent, high-quality thread.

I hang out on a few other niche forums too, and that’s totally standard practice there—it used to be way more common here, too, though it feels like it's dying out lately. Look, I get it—trolls and jerks need to be shut down—but when a debate starts veering off into a whole different direction, it’s actually super helpful to just spin up a new thread and do a C/P (or whatever you call splitting topics) for all the posts that don't fit the current vibe.

Look, if we’re playing strictly by the book, what I just said doesn't even matter—but seriously, moderators should probably just let us start a fresh thread once a discussion hits like 40 posts instead of handing out cards for trolling or going off-topic... especially when they could just delete those posts instead.

I mean, let’s be real—this forum is basically just a digital dive bar. And we all know how those barroom debates go—you start out talking about changing a tire and somehow end up arguing about Trump and the partisans. The Godwin Law—it's basically a fact at this point.).

Great... just great. 👍

Just my two cents regarding that Religion PDF—specifically when it hits this topic...

Evolution vs. Creationism—Part 3.

Look, I get it—this thread is supposed to be strictly about evolution... but since everyone keeps dragging the Book of Genesis back into the mix—and that book basically bundles biblical cosmogony with how life and humans were made anyway—it’s pretty much impossible not to end up comparing scientific theory against theological creationism.

It wasn't even an issue when this thread first started—but lately? Not so much... way too many posts getting nuked.

Look, I know we've got threads going on about Flat Earth, the Big Bang, and the whole Science vs. Religion debate, but honestly? It’s just not cutting it for me.

Look, I really don't want to make more work for Grace Kim80—when I see people going off-topic, I’m gonna call it out—but regarding this thread, we should probably just rename it. It needs to actually cover everything from the Big Bang and evolution to how NASA's science evolved—specifically all that old debate between geocentrism and heliocentrism.
I don't see what the big deal is—honestly.

Nicole Barrett76 said:Of course this is the best approach.

It isn't just Europe that needs to tackle this issue head-on. What are our sister Arab nations doing—countries like Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Dubai, the Emirates, Algeria, Morocco, and Egypt? What is Israel doing? What about those Turkic Central Asian states? And what are the USA, Russia, Australia, India, China, and Pakistan doing???

Is it only us Americans who are expected to act as if we are somehow superhuman?

And if we absolutely must confront this problem, wouldn't it be best to house them in camps, far removed from the rest of the population, providing them with food, clothing, and warmth, while using every political means at our disposal to end the war quickly so they can be sent back to rebuild their own nation as soon as possible?

That is perfectly understandable. In fact, it is one of the significant reasons that migrants ought to realize: that a fear of strangers is a completely normal and rational phenomenon; that they should have fought for their own country (just as we fought for ours); and that being "forced" to chop wood is by no means an act of slavery or oppression, but rather a recognition that everyone must be a productive member of society and that one cannot live off idleness; furthermore, the mere opportunity to work, even if it is a "lowly and dirty job" like chopping wood, is actually a profound expression of trust placed in them.

I get all that, and I'm with you... but like Lee said earlier... If Angela Merkel was shouting "Welcome!", then from a migrant's perspective, what right does a little subject like you have to come in and start setting conditions?
Forget this whole "everyone must be a productive member of society" thing... they don't give a damn about that—they only care about direct orders from the government... that's the only thing they actually respect.

Kudos to the idea! 👍

I'm definitely interested in this topic too...

Honestly, I don't think political correctness can be tied to just one ideology—left or right—which is kind of a "convenient loophole"... assuming people actually keep that in mind during debates.
Even though it's mostly seen as the "liberal mainstream" today, back in the early '50s in the US, being politically correct meant avoiding anything that sounded even remotely like the left—you know, dodging "communist propaganda."
Before that, it used to mark what was considered "orthodox" Stalinism.

So, to me, it looks like nothing more than a list of ideological taboos set by the ruling elite. Anything outside those lines gets branded as "populism," at the very least.

lonebadger6 said:Hey, look—it wasn't an issue with your post itself, it just happened to get caught in the crossfire. Basically, mods aren't allowed to edit posts, and since yours was a reply to something that got nuked, there we go. If you think your point still holds up without that deleted context, I can shoot it over to you via DM.

Fine then, I’ll try to play nice.
Thanks, no need to DM me the post, and you guys can just lock this thread as far as I'm concerned.

Today, in the Politics, topic about migrants delete

My post got nuked and I have zero clue why.
Can I get an explanation?

Thanks.

Mark Harris66 said:It’s interesting seeing so many women on this thread theorizing about solidarity—but are we just ignoring the reality here? About 70% of migrants are men between the ages of 18 and 50. It makes you wonder if people actually realize what the situation is like for women and children back there... Plus, roughly 95% of those arriving in the US are Sunni. Maybe do a little reading on Sunnis first...
Check out some literature from authors giving you that real insider perspective—specifically women of the Muslim faith sharing what it’s actually like navigating the world today. There's even some great stuff written in English. Plus, there are endless expert articles covering the status of women in those regions, or specifically looking at the situation for female migrants across the US...

U.S. Census Bureau data regarding men:
Check out this data from the U.S. Census Bureau—really interesting stuff if you have a second...

Looking at the breakdown of asylum seekers by gender—it turns out men are more likely to apply than women. Across the US-50, things actually looked pretty balanced among kids under 14... back in 2014, boys made up about 53% of those applications. But once you look at the older groups—the 14–17 range or the 18–34 crowd—that gender gap starts to widen quite a bit... About three-quarters of the applicants ended up being guys... For those seeking asylum, women actually edged out men in the 65+ age bracket—though that specific group was pretty tiny, making up only about 0.8% of all applications back in 2014...

Human trafficking is still a massive, growing problem across the States—it’s honestly heartbreaking how much it's scaled up lately. Recent reports show that organized crime rings are getting more sophisticated, making it harder for local law enforcement to keep pace. It isn't just about one specific area either; it’s happening in major hubs like New York and even smaller towns all over the country. We really need better federal oversight and more resources for victim support if we want to actually make a dent in this... it's a tough road ahead.

Officials are sounding the alarm—the refugee crisis in the US is driving up concerns over sex trafficking... It's a grim reality that's getting harder to ignore.
The IOM mentioned last week that around 4,371 women and girls from Mexico have reached the USA since January. Most of them—about 80 percent, if you go by the IOM figures—were actually victims of trafficking and sexual violence...According to the UN, roughly 13 percent of the refugees heading toward the USA are women...

The UN reports...
The latest report from the UN highlights some pretty critical gaps in reproductive health access across the US—it’s definitely worth a look if you care about where things stand with healthcare equity today. It touches on how different regions are handling essential services, especially when it comes to making sure everyone gets the support they need regardless of their zip code... seems like there's still a massive mountain to climb to get things truly equal nationwide.

They clearly don't give a damn. All they care about is living in an environment that protects them and keeps them isolated from any unwanted contact with immigrants.
Yeah, obviously, Michael Roberts7 mentioned her little love affair with her precious multicultural society—now she's mentioning a business trip to India... do I really need to spell it out for you?
Who gives a crap about white trash who are naturally leaning toward fascism and racism... yuck.
Walls and fences aren't going away—they'll be needed—but they'll be built around wealthy neighborhoods because America is going to become the Third World, split by social classes where ethnic origin won't even matter anymore.

The government's job is to look after its own citizens. That’s why we pay taxes. They can help foreigners if they want, fine, but not at the expense of the locals.
We are financially collapsing and drowning in debt.
Germany is wealthy and should have simply organized a direct train from Istanbul to Munich if they wanted migrants. (And maybe revive the Orient Express while they're at it 🤣) But the catch is, nobody in the German public was asked if they wanted migrants; Angela Merkel just decided it herself, even though members of her own party were against her decisions.

What's the point of a nation-state? It's just a relic of a dark past. If the elites want to bring in immigrants, who's going to ask the peasants how their tax money is being spent?
An empire is being built; forget about democracy.

Canada is eight times smaller than Germany, yet it took in almost half as many as Germany did.

And then you have people here calling Canada fascist-adjacent.🤦🤦

Plenty of politicians within Merkel's party are already thinking about building a wall:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a6700426.html

And they haven't even reached Canada's level of asylum seekers yet.😁

Yeah, maybe all is not lost. We need to fight back.