Slashdot Mirror

About the TheDonald folks, I've read about them (I tried to surf on Reddit a while ago but wasn't able to filter the noise) but could never figure what is their demographic: do they actually turn in greater numbers than the white nationalists you pointed first?

And in unrelated note, could you explain to a foreigner how the evangelist group came to vote so massively for a godless narcissist?

If you find them desirable, feel free to donate your own money. I don't and I don't want a cent of my tax money to be given to this useless idiot. What a world where producing luxury cars only the wealthiest can afford is seen as "desirable". You Godless heathens really need your own secular idols. The human need to worship cannot be suppressed, when you lose faith in God you look towards con artists like Musk as a substitute.

BTW. I didn't log in because I don't have an account here, never had one. It's really a sad gesture when you become protective of a fake identity you create on some internet forum. Nobody recognizes you here and nobody ever will. I don't think anyone really looks at the nicknames anymore.

I wonder what negative slant the Obama haters will come up with for this one?

*ahem*...

THIS IS JUST MORE RAMPANT SOCIAL JUSTICE WARRIOR CLAPTRAP PISSING ON MEN! WHERE ARE THE MEDALS FOR THE MEN WHO BUILT THE MACHINE"S THESE WOMEN USED HUH??? WHAT ABOUT THEM, OBUMMER!?!?!

These "programmers" were just punching holes in paper. My kids can do that!!! What did they do that was so great huh??? Adding 1's and 0's? Guess what, it's 1 you elitist snobs, now where's my medal???

Thank GOD we prayed on it and JESUS TRUMP is going to make AMERICA GREAT AGAIN by putting women back where they belong. Everything was better when women wore sexy skirts and brought you drinks at work then stood around waiting for you to grab them by the p***y. Now they're just GODLESS hairy legged ABORTION machines, carrying dead fetuses up in their vaginas and trying to be equal to MEN. They're all HARLOTS and GOD will strike them down like they deserve. NASTY WOMAN!!! THROW HER IN JAIL!!!

Regulations against fraud and theft are just big government overreach. It artificially restricts the natural order of the strong profiting from the weak. It's one thing if the poor try to steal from the rich, but when the wealthy can no longer fatten themselves by taking advantage of the poor, well that's just godless communism!

Are the godless commie muslim liberal traitors not being politically correct enough for you?

That's a shame.

When I was young, it was the Birchers going on and on (and on and on and on) about how candidate (x) was a Godless Rooski Agent (tm). Now, it's the Left that's doing this. What a world, what a world.

(Me, there's no way I'd ever vote for either of the [deleted]s. I think I'm going to write in Cthulhu as the lesser evil. Calling IT "the lesser evil" seriously risks annoying IT enough to wake IT up, but at least I won't have to contemplate the prospect of either of those [deleted]s in the White House.)

The blame should be placed on the godless religion of political correctness which prevents those with this transmissible disease from being quarantined to protect future victims.

Standard units of measure developed over time because they were useful and relatable. When you measure in a system that matches your intuition then it's easier to notice mistakes.

The metric system was dreamt up by some godless heathen murderous French peasants who wanted to please their god and father, Satan, the devil, God of this earth. It has no relation to anything of common experience, with the exception of Demoncraps' unrepentantly wicked deviances. Certainly, this system is useless outside of certain occult ceremonies which demand its use.

In conclusion, you can't just eat stinky cheese, obsess over variously spoiled juices and malts and allow unwashed Mooslims to sodomize all your women all the time. Take some time to learn something useful, perhaps by reading a book, learn God's one true system of measure and give yourself over to Christ.

Jill Stein 2016.

Yes and there's a very simple model to make it clearer: pre-modern, modern, and post-modern.

Modern is the start of humanistic values. Pre-modern is old empires enforced with mythic and religious identity and so on. Post-modern is currently half baked, a step towards global but still in its early phase, and hasn't worked out yet.

So for example, post-modern often champions the rights of islamists to not be offended because it wants to avoid western cultural imperialism, even though the islamists are trying to return us to the pre-modern Middle Ages. And of course there was no post-modernity back in the Middle Ages, so post-modernity ends up trying to destroy itself. And taking us all down with it.

Personally I think we all just need to re-study modernity and understand what its core value for is for the world, the stuff it advanced and got right, such as the individual and humanistic values and education and so on. And figure out how the world as a whole can configure to develop towards modernity.

Once most of the world is practicing and working at a modern humanistic level, then a real post-modernity can emerge. The current version of post-modernity is a fuckup.

But it doesn't have to be depressing. Many recoil against modernity because it is godless or lacks rules for living. But Buddha already 2500 years ago said you have to cast off the old myths and figure out for yourself, as an individual, what works, including, what's the answer to happiness and compassion. Depending on how you read it, Buddha was teaching humanistic values thousands of years ago.

  Pre modern empire structures, basically weaponise religion to control followers and gain power. But if people just put on humanistic glasses, many of these weird cross cultural issues become very clear.

> I'm picking that one definition because linguistically, that is what the word means.

Then you're ignoring centuries of philosophical history in favor of a narrow, pedantic definition.

Furthermore, the word comes from the Greek "atheos," meaning "godless," i.e. "the doctrine of godlessness," which could mean either someone who denies god(s) or someone who lacks belief in god(s).

Face it, the reason you choose that narrow definition is because you want to put atheists on equal footing with you as a matter of faith. You require atheists to have faith that there is no God, when in fact the absence of faith is what most atheists have.

Yes, there is a correlation, and it is negative. Republicans donate more than Democrats.

This is only true if you also count RSIs (Religious Self-identified Institutions). If you exclude those, the numbers no longer favor the republicans.

One problem is that religious recipients for the most part spend the money on themselves.

The latest figures I could find was that the average charity in the US spends around 75% on actual charity, and around 25% for administration and other local costs. However, and this is data from a religious organization, religious charities spend less than 25% on actual charity, and use more than 75% for administration and other local costs.

Someone paying tithe to their church, which is mostly used to pay pastors and preachers and pay for church buildings and whatnot does not help others much. But it seriously skews the figures.

But if you don't believe me, look at the pro capita spending for different countries. There is a direct and strong correlation between the spending pro capita and the ratio of self-identified godless to the overall population. Countries like the Scandinavian countries give the most per person - far more than the US god-botherers give even if counting religious contributions - and also have the lowest ratio of religious citizens.

The problem here is those who are loudest at proclaiming their faith are often those who diverge the most from what their faith is supposed to be.
The "born again" reset switch is another thing abused a great deal. Doing good to make up for mistakes of the past is commendable but just using it as a way to escape criticism of prior evil is another.

There are a lot of "Merchants in the temple" out there pretending to be something other than opportunists.

What is worst is those who pretend that they have a God so petty that it does what it's told - sending a hurricane to smite the Godless New Yorkers for one example of a spectacularly evil televangelist piece of shit.

Actually, weird w, this isn't political correctness, as generally understood, but simply hysterical moralism, making any point about the origins of political correctness to be rather meaningless.

Of course, if you want to say that the right considers any criticism of its conduct fighting a war against the godless comunists to be politically incorrect, I won't argue with you.

I'll just point out that most people won't grasp it, they don't know how to articulate the notion that the right finds certain communications and subjects to be offensive and forbidden. They'll probably blame you for it too.

Still, this is not political, the antiwar message of the liberals didn't factor into it this time, it was because she was nekkid, and we can't have that. Just imagine if somebody posted a picture of Michaelangelo's David. They'd faint! From the shock!

The godless communist religion of political correctness acts to ensure that the problem is seen as not enough communism, rather than too little access to capital to compete with the rich, who bribe the communists to keep capital out of the hands of their competitors, the poor. Apple receives fair value from the European communists, so it should pay up.

The godless communist religion of political correctness acts to ensure that the problem is seen as not enough communism, rather than too little access to capital to compete with the rich, who bribe the communists to keep capital out of the hands of their competitors, the poor.

Godless innovation is not innovation.

They should pack a lot of dogs to eat.

Ummm, no. Sorry to burst your memory bubble, but people looked up to dipshits in Hollywood, baseball stars and anti-intellectuals like those leading the John Birch society.

That era basically created the Orange County Republican phenomenon leading to the rise of the religious right. It was one of the most religious eras in American history, responsible for putting "under God" in our pledge of allegiance, lest we be compared to the godless communists.

At best, an adherent to your system could say “according to how the majority of people’s appetites seem, it is probably wrong to murder.”

Not at all, in several ways. One, majoritarianism doesn't matter. Nobody gets to tell anybody else that their appetites are aberrant and don't count; the objective good must account for all appetites, just like the objective truth must account for all observations.

Second, this seems to confuse what an appetite is: I can't have an appetite about whether or not it is wrong to murder you, so it's not like it would be possible to even have a unanimous-minus-one consensus of appetites that murdering the one objector is good; appetites aren't desires, or intentions, they're experiences. The most relevant appetites in determining that matter are those of the would-be victim, and the job of the rest in trying to answer the question of whether murdering them is OK would be to consider what it's like to be murdered and it that seems good or bad according to their hypothetical appetites as the hypothetical victim. In more contentious cases you'd want to actually go and experience the thing someone else experiences and see if that feels good or bad to you in those circumstances, but with something like there's experience enough to draw from to make that inference without further testing -- we've all been injured at some point or another, to some extent or another, and we know whether that feels good or bad, and since murdering someone would involve injuring them we can conclude a lot about it without having to be murdered ourselves, obviously.

Third, there don't have to be broad absolute rules for things to be objectively true or false, so the conclusion wouldn't even need to be "murder is (probably) wrong", but more along the lines of "it is usually wrong to murder"; it might be (though in the case of murder, it isn't) the case that some times a thing is right to do and some times it's wrong, but each particular case is objectively right or wrong, even though there isn't a pattern to them -- or rather, even though that pattern isn't the one that applies to them.

On top of all that it assumes uniformity of nature when your system can’t provide an absolute basis for that either. You have to accept it as an axiom to even begin to use your system.

Every system must take some things as axioms. I actually kind of misspoke when I called it an axiom of my system earlier though, as it's not taken without any justification, it's taken as a consequence of even more fundamental principles. Even these aren't really the ultimate starting point, but those more fundamental principles are essentially: we ought to try to figure out what's true and false, good and bad, etc; and to try try anything, we must assume neither success nor failure is inevitable. Denying uniformity of nature would mean failure at figuring out what's true and false was inevitable, so consequently we cannot deny it. (The deeper principles still answer the question of why we ought to figure out what's true or false, good or bad, and the answer to that is essentially that no matter what we do, we're attempting in one way or another to employ truths as means to achieve good ends, so no matter what we do it behooves us to figure out what's true and false, good and bad).

I believe that a consistent materialist worldview does reduce to skepticism.

It's interesting that you read my Codex, because just the other day I was thinking "wow, this guy is a walking almost-self-admitted example of my contention in the Codex that fideists are just nihilists hiding behind God, and nihilists are just godless fideists". (Of course that last part isn't very new, Neitzsche concluded more or less that, but that's not well-known about him). You and a nihilist (or radical skeptic if you like) share so much philosophical framework in common, and it all looks equally faulty to me; it hardly makes an

That's kind of what bugs me about all of this. If the HRC campaign is to be believed, Trump works for the godless enemy of organized crime and bigotry around the world, while she herself has the full approval of the CIA and NSA to save us from this evil menace. Of course that inconveniently means she is accusing about 30% of americans of collusion with the enemy, and another 30-50% with criminal negligence and essentially being too ignorant to hold citizenship.

What the fuck happened to checks and balances?