I always wonder if there are any members on here who actually support Trump and if so, wonder why they don't take the time to come on this thread and try to make posts on here that support him. I mean certainly this site must have SOME members like that. But then they must read all of the other posts on here and think that there's no point in even trying.
I’ve said it many times in this thread: I would be delighted if more conservative folks/Trump supporters want to post in this thread. They’re going to be faced with disagreement, but that comes with the territory on an online forum. I would hope the discourse here is more intelligent and respectful than other places.
I'm far from being a Trump supporter, but I think I posted around here from a conservative (socially conservative!) point of view often, maybe too much even. Including why I think some people might vote for Trump, why those people matter, why we should not shoot down and/or blacklist those people, why maybe Trump winning wouldn't have to be the worst thing ever... Oh, and how I hate, hate, hate that hardline liberal progressivism that the Democrats now go for.
That's possibly as far as it gets, but then again - I said it many times over here - both US parties are terrible in their ideology. Both present their own vision of Hell on Earth and I wonder whichever succeeds first (and don't even get me started on the libertarians).
I guess if you needed to classify me, I'm somewhere around classical conservatism, sometimes even falling into the reactionary one (de Maistre etc., with most of what's wrong with the world today having its roots in the French revolution and post-modernism), but that's mostly in theory - in practice I begrudgingly support the classic Christian democracy, I'd say, my latent monarchism be damned.
With that said - do you expect me to shout "STOP THE STEAL?" To actually support the buffoon?
I am kinda glad the election was this close (and it was, at least, close enough), because it might mean the Dems won't run rampant - possibly. Though AOC is already trying to head that way.
G. K. Chesterton once wrote this (and it's really the core of most of my political rants):
„The modern world is not evil; in some ways the modern world is far too good. It is full of wild and wasted virtues. When a religious scheme is shattered (as Christianity was shattered at the Reformation), it is not merely the vices that are let loose. The vices are, indeed, let loose, and they wander and do damage. But the virtues are let loose also; and the virtues wander more wildly, and the virtues do more terrible damage. The modern world is full of the old Christian virtues gone mad. The virtues have gone mad because they have been isolated from each other and are wandering alone. Thus some scientists care for truth; and their truth is pitiless. Thus some humanitarians only care for pity; and their pity (I am sorry to say) is often untruthful. For example, Mr. Blatchford attacks Christianity because he is mad on one Christian virtue: the merely mystical and almost irrational virtue of charity. He has a strange idea that he will make it easier to forgive sins by saying that there are no sins to forgive. Mr. Blatchford is not only an early Christian, he is the only early Christian who ought really to have been eaten by lions. For in his case the pagan accusation is really true: his mercy would mean mere anarchy. He really is the enemy of the human race — because he is so human."
(and just for the record - few more paragraphs, if someone wanted to know his point beyond what I was trying to say )
"As the other extreme, we may take the acrid realist, who has deliberately killed in himself all human pleasure in happy tales or in the healing of the heart. Torquemada tortured people physically for the sake of moral truth. Zola tortured people morally for the sake of physical truth. But in Torquemada’s time there was at least a system that could to some extent make righteousness and peace kiss each other. Now they do not even bow. But a much stronger case than these two of truth and pity can be found in the remarkable case of the dislocation of humility.
It is only with one aspect of humility that we are here concerned. Humility was largely meant as a restraint upon the arrogance and infinity of the appetite of man. He was always outstripping his mercies with his own newly invented needs. His very power of enjoyment destroyed half his joys. By asking for pleasure, he lost the chief pleasure; for the chief pleasure is surprise. Hence it became evident that if a man would make his world large, he must be always making himself small. Even the haughty visions, the tall cities, and the toppling pinnacles are the creations of humility. Giants that tread down forests like grass are the creations of humility. Towers that vanish upwards above the loneliest star are the creations of humility. For towers are not tall unless we look up at them; and giants are not giants unless they are larger than we. All this gigantesque imagination, which is, perhaps, the mightiest of the pleasures of man, is at bottom entirely humble. It is impossible without humility to enjoy anything — even pride.
But what we suffer from to-day is humility in the wrong place. Modesty has moved from the organ of ambition. Modesty has settled upon the organ of conviction; where it was never meant to be. A man was meant to be doubtful about himself, but undoubting about the truth; this has been exactly reversed. Nowadays the part of a man that a man does assert is exactly the part he ought not to assert — himself. The part he doubts is exactly the part he ought not to doubt — the Divine Reason. Huxley preached a humility content to learn from Nature. But the new sceptic is so humble that he doubts if he can even learn. Thus we should be wrong if we had said hastily that there is no humility typical of our time. The truth is that there is a real humility typical of our time; but it so happens that it is practically a more poisonous humility than the wildest prostrations of the ascetic. The old humility was a spur that prevented a man from stopping; not a nail in his boot that prevented him from going on. For the old humility made a man doubtful about his efforts, which might make him work harder. But the new humility makes a man doubtful about his aims, which will make him stop working altogether.
„At any street corner we may meet a man who utters the frantic and blasphemous statement that he may be wrong. Every day one comes across somebody who says that of course his view may not be the right one. Of course his view must be the right one, or it is not his view. We are on the road to producing a race of men too mentally modest to believe in the multiplication table. We are in danger of seeing philosophers who doubt the law of gravity as being a mere fancy of their own. Scoffers of old time were too proud to be convinced; but these are too humble to be convinced. The meek do inherit the earth; but the modern sceptics are too meek even to claim their inheritance. It is exactly this intellectual helplessness which is our second problem.
The last chapter has been concerned only with a fact of observation: that what peril of morbidity there is for man comes rather from his reason than his imagination. It was not meant to attack the authority of reason; rather it is the ultimate purpose to defend it. For it needs defence. The whole modern world is at war with reason; and the tower already reels.“
In that regard, yes, I do find Republicans the possibly less dangerous ones. Sure, they might be loud-mouthed and violent and the election might still result in a coup of sorts, they might be fascist and racist and "homophobic" (a very loaded word, nowadays, hence the quote marks), but those are vices that can be broken and gotten rid of. The Republicans are bad and need to be reformed. The current Democrats are so virtuous they are beyond any saving.
I am somewhat glad that there are people who serve as an obstruction for Democrats to create the perfect liberal paradise according to them. Of course I am not glad the reason for many might be because they're racist hicks and/or people who consider any kind of welfare "Communism".
Is that enough of a Trump support for y'all?
The core of America's problem (methinks) is its insane rabid individualism (both parties are individualistic - the GOP fiscally, the Dems regarding "reproductive health care", you know what I mean and also their general drive for secularism), also the fact they behave as if the only alternative to staunch, egoistical individualism was collectivism.
And the election won't solve that. And Cortez wants to start making "red" lists once again. Heck, I'm very much for environmentalism, but I almost kinda hope the GND crashes and burns, because I can't stand that woman.
Also, both parties (or at least their members) abuse and rape Christianity hypocritically to get votes, but at least with GOP it might have some actual results (defunding Planned Parenthood) and Dump and the GOP at least being WASPs don't proclaim their Catholicity which Bidet did again and again and again. Fuck him for that.
As for the lack of not just Trump supporters, but possibly conservatives in general around here - you shouldn't be surprised, though - this is a metal forum with most prominently active members being from Western, secular countries, that is, coming from background which more often than not would give people a decidedly more liberal bent.
First of all - if I'm being a Nazist, feel free to ban me, really.
Second of all - that's not an approach that's going to help unify the sides in any way, right? Meaning that's not a very nice implication right there.
Third of all - what is "Nazism" here? I am saying this because recently you're "homophobic" even if you say it's a deviation from the norm or if you are against gay "marriage". Jordan Peterson is labeled "hateful".
So I wonder - is problematizing e.g. illegal immigrants Nazi-like? Is it even inherently racist according to you? Because I am very much against racism in any shape or form, yet I don't think the illegal immigrants should be exactly pampered, unless they are running from an actual war or oppression of course.
P. S. - I really hope I stand up to the standards Mosh wrote there, that is, that the discussion is done with dignity. If not, please let me know.
I guess if you needed to classify me, I'm somewhere around classical conservatism, sometimes even falling into the reactionary one (de Maistre etc., with most of what's wrong with the world today having its roots in the French revolution and post-modernism), but that's mostly in theory - in practice I begrudgingly support the classic Christian democracy, I'd say, my latent monarchism be damned.
Why, first of all, I'm not angry and if it came across that way, my mistake, blame the language barrier.
But talking about what is the "spirit of Jesus" and whether someone "fits" into that, now that's brave. If you count the gospels and Paul that's at least five canonical people with some very differing views on Jesus - Christologies. And Christianity is a complex system; sure, you can explain it to a little child, even, but that doesn't mean it's simple.
(BTW - If you really wanted to put "Christian message" (kerygma) in a single sentence, it would probably be "Jesus, son of God and one of the persons of God Himself became flesh, was crucified, died for us and our sins, was ressurected and gave us His Spirit so that we could become one with God" but that's neither here or there. BTW BTW - the "persons" - It's also why ecumenically you are not considered Christian if you don't believe in Trinity - because Christian God is a relational God and that's, like, the most important thing ever.)
Jesus was much more liberal than any conservative would like and also much more traditionalist, preachy and "bigoted" (in the original sense of the word, that is, disrespectful to other people's opinions) than any liberal would like. And I mean conservative and liberal in both the political sense and the religious one. This paradoxical nature of not just Him, but also Christianity in general is why it works, actually. You cannot make a simple, single ideology out of that.
I dare say that if Jesus (and the Bible in general) doesn't offend you at least somewhat from time to time, you are probably reading it wrong. It is not meant to support your worldview so that you could stay the same.
Or, to lighten the mood somewhat
So please, if you really want to go there and talk about "my" concept of "Christianity", please, do so, by all means, but I wonder about how informed that assessment really is and of course I'd like to stress this "concept" ain't really "mine". In anything I do, I am standing on the shoulders of many, many giants and I wouldn't dare to credit their work, intelligence, spirituality etc. to myself.
EDIT: Also, I just realized that the fact that arguing about the nature of Christianity are people nicknamed JudasMyGuide and jazz from hell might be one of the most hilarious things I've ever come across on this forum...
I disagree with you on a lot of what you posted, although I too think both parties are terrible (but we seem to think that for different reasons lol). But as far as I could see — and feel free to prove me wrong — Biden only seemed to bring up his Catholicism in defense of conservatives labeling him and the Democrats as atheistic dogs who would turn the country into a hellhole (hyperbole, of course). On the other hand, (again from what I can tell) the Republican Party constantly brings up religion as if they’re the only ones you can vote for if you’re a True Believer.
In all honesty, living in rural, conservative America has made me increasingly bitter towards religion. Not religion as in one’s personal beliefs of why we’re here and what’s beyond life and what we should do with our time on earth. I’m talking about religion, as in the controlling force that seeks to tell you what to do and tries to run the government. America was supposed to separate church and state, but Christianity is a driving force in politics, and I find that scary. It took me literally years before I actually was able to think for myself and didn’t just let what my parents said be what I believed. And once I did I was shocked at how much I once believed was hogwash. And shockingly the more I think for myself the more I’m labeled as “brainwashed”. From my view the brainwashing came during my formative years. So religion again I truly believe should be left out of politics altogether because the weaponizing of it has been a blight on American government since its formation.
But I know that you too think for yourself, and you’ve come to very different answers than I have. That’s something I can respect.
I don’t know what’s happening here but it looks like two people with different viewpoints on American politics having a civil discourse AND THAT CANNOT HAPPEN!!1
irst of all - if I'm being a Nazist, feel free to ban me, really.
Second of all - that's not an approach that's going to help unify the sides in any way, right? Meaning that's not a very nice implication right there.
Third of all - what is "Nazism" here? I am saying this because recently you're "homophobic" even if you say it's a deviation from the norm or if you are against gay "marriage". Jordan Peterson is labeled "hateful".
So I wonder - is problematizing e.g. illegal immigrants Nazi-like? Is it even inherently racist according to you? Because I am very much against racism in any shape or form, yet I don't think the illegal immigrants should be exactly pampered, unless they are running from an actual war or oppression of course.
Second of all - there's barriers and lines, establishing where they are ensure people won't cross them. Grey areas are where extremists operate in online spaces. I wasn't talking about anyone I'd expect.
Third of all - Nazis are people who support fascism and the fascist takeover of government, specifically with a racist ideology.
If you say "the average person isn't homosexual" you are correct and that's fine. If you say "homosexuality isn't normal" you are wrong. If you say "homosexuality isn't natural" you're a homophobe, but I'll try to correct you at least once. If you say "god says that homosexuals should be killed so kill them" or use any homophobic slur (such as the one starting with f), then you're banned. I hope this better illustrates the degrees I'm talking about.
Talking about illegal immigrants is fine as long as it's not racism, right? Like, you can say, yeah, there are laws that are meant to be followed, but if the situation was obviously racist (IE, members of the GOP being against (legal) immigration from shithole countries in Africa but A-OK with it from Norway) then yes, you'll get called out and asked to evaluate your biases.
I’m from the US and am a socialist. While Trump was a national embarrassment, he’s a symptom rather than the cause of the neo-capitalist agenda. His supporters are denied class consciousness by diverting blame to the petit bourgeois. His detractors, for the most part, are denied class consciousness by diverting blame to the white working class.
In the past conservatism played on religious views to support capitalism by encouraging the religious right to vote against their own interests. Religiosity’s decline and the rise in education attenuated this approach culminating in nascent class consciousness taking hold after the 2008 financial crisis.
The 21st century capitalists now approach proletarian division from both left and right angles. The social justice movement (prominently LGBT+ causes) and its manufactured outrage simply delay class consciousness in the same way American conservative populism does. It’s what Marx would call “bourgeois socialism” — both a palliative for the petit bourgeois and wedge among the unaware masses.
In the meantime, the political sideshow fails to develop universal access to healthcare, education, and respectable working conditions. Techno-trusts expand, all the while waving the multi-hued banner of social justice, while the working class sinks further into a drug addled anomie as automation makes them obsolete.
@JudasMyGuide - nobody called you a Nazi here and you're not giving any smart person a reason to do so.
I disagree with you fundamentally on most of your opinions and philosophical reasonings to the point that I believe our world views are almost completely incompatible and irreconcilable. I just want to get this out there for once - I don't think there's ever been a forum member I've disagreed with as much on so broad a basis. However, I would never take you for a political extremist or a Trump fan, and I think few people who take the time to read your posts and follow your reasoning would.
EDIT: Just for the record, I do think that much of what Jordan Peterson says is eloquently wrapped hate propaganda. I don't know if the man himself is hateful because I don't know him personally, but the content of what he says (and omits to say) never fails to send chills down my spine.
Also, I just realized that the fact that arguing about the nature of Christianity are people nicknamed JudasMyGuide and jazz from hell might be one of the most hilarious things I've ever come across on this forum...
No matter what the topic of discussion is, it always makes me happy when someone counters the reference to "natural" with some cold hard counterexamples of "natural = good"
Because as a scientist, I find it extremely annoying when the "natural = good" argument is being made. It is harmful.
No matter what the topic of discussion is, it always makes me happy when someone counters the reference to "natural" with some cold hard counterexamples of "natural = good"
Because as a scientist, I find it extremely annoying when the "natural = good" argument is being made. It is harmful.
I wanted to let this be, since you guys started to put this in...
Just BTW - although 90-95% people will probably use this wrong, "natural" in this context doesn't mean (or isn't supposed to mean at least) "according to nature" or in any way connected with "nature" as you probably use and understand the word - it means it is against the human final, philosophic nature (yep, the word has more meanings).
Heck, why not, you used it anyway - okay, here we go. Disclaimer - this is gonna be controversial, unpopular and I'm not even sure how much sure am I about this - just trying to explain something really unpopular and villified as best as I can (and without getting into Thomism to boot!).
To put it simply, this is based on the idea that a human being is personal. That means relational, because I need your "YOU" for my "ME". As Fichte says - I define "I" against something that is "not-I", I need to know that "not-I" in order to understand who "I" actually am.
And the "relational" aspect of Christianity says that I cannot live fully until I am in relation - to the ultimate good which made me (God) and to other people. That's why I mentioned above that Trinity is so important - it means that the Christian God doesn't need to create anything in order to differentiate himself (he does not depend on His creation), his person, his "I". He is both I and non-I, because he is three persons in one, who relate to one another with the ultimate relation there is, charitas (or the "Christian love" - "I want you to be, I want good for you, the ultimate good").
And this is reflected in the highest "type" of interpersonal relation that people are capable of between them - the "becoming one". That is, I find the "you" for my "me", in which connection I share the ineffable experience of me with the ineffable experience of you. And this ineffability is somehow reflected in the biological sex - in that regard that, surgery be damned, it is an unique and impossible-to-express experience, life, to live in a male or female body. And to achieve this type of relation, I should be searching for the "other", something different from myself, somebody who lives in the "opposing" body. I should be searching also for the biological you to my biological me, which is the relationship most productive (by fecundity, as well, but not only that, also metaphysically, by "connecting the opposites" of sorts).
And if I'm not doing that (or better, if I'm using this type of relationship to find another biological "I"), that's perceived to be against the philosophical nature of human beings - in a way. Hence, "unnatural". Doesn't mean the people are not human. That their feelings aren't valid. It's just that acting on this might not be the healthiest thing ever, for their spiritual well-being.
(with this is also connected what Pope Francis was actually saying in that document - the original one - that if you really must have legal framework for gay people living together, we should push for "civil unions", because "marriage" is supposed to be the stuff above)
And I don't really see the homophobia, because there's no hate nor fear. Just differing anthropology.
I don't want to argue, really, I know you will disagree. I don't want you to think I'm hateful or something. Apparently I was "uncivil" even before this, so I guess I can't help it.
It's just it's not meant in the way you used it and there's (or at least should be) more behind it.
But sure, most people probably don't understand this and use it to argue like "male ducks f*** female ducks only" or some shit like that.
Second of all - there's barriers and lines, establishing where they are ensure people won't cross them. Grey areas are where extremists operate in online spaces. I wasn't talking about anyone I'd expect.
Yep, but reacting to Travis who asked why is there so few Trumpers here your post seemed to imply that it's because Trumpers = Nazis (or at least most of them), if you know what I mean. Yep, you didn't say that, but the silent implication was what I said is not nice. I realize you probably didn't really mean it that way or that it was meant in jest.
But because we are using strong labels - "Nazi", "fascist", "homophobe" I tried to take offense against that in general. I know I wasn't being called a Nazi (yet)
@JudasMyGuide - nobody called you a Nazi here and you're not giving any smart person a reason to do so.
I disagree with you fundamentally on most of your opinions and philosophical reasonings to the point that I believe our world views are almost completely incompatible and irreconcilable. I just want to get this out there for once - I don't think there's ever been a forum member I've disagreed with as much on so broad a basis. However, I would never take you for a political extremist or a Trump fan, and I think few people who take the time to read your posts and follow your reasoning would.
EDIT: Just for the record, I do think that much of what Jordan Peterson says is eloquently wrapped hate propaganda. I don't know if the man himself is hateful because I don't know him personally, but the content of what he says (and omits to say) never fails to send chills down my spine.
fundamentally on most of your opinions and philosophical reasonings to the point that I believe our world views are almost completely incompatible and irreconcilable
You see - I actually like reading your posts. They are highly interesting because you do a great job of explaining your point of view and why you feel a certain way. If I haven't given you that feeling it's because I often can't give the replies I think they deserve because these days I can't seem to find the time to sit down and engage in such a debate. There are moments when I find something you say truly objectionable and want to reply to it, but it would feel like cherrypicking what I don't like and ignoring the rest. Since I hate it when somebody does that to me, I don't want to be guilty of it myself.
So yeah, of course we can love each other. After all, there's a chance you might be right and in that case it's good to have a Catholic advocate in the end.
Just BTW - although 90-95% people will probably use this wrong, "natural" in this context doesn't mean (or isn't supposed to mean at least) "according to nature" or in any way connected with "nature" as you probably use and understand the word - it means it is against the human final, philosophic nature (yep, the word has more meanings).
I have never met someone who thinks of the word "natural" that way who hasn't studied philosophy in depth.. I have only ever heard people to literally mean "that happens in the state of nature" or "doesn't happen in the state of nature". So yes, that's what I'm talking about. I expect you to be eloquent enough to explain your point without referring to such crassness.
Luckily, I live in a place where gay people can get all the married they want, but the Catholic Church (nor any other church) doesn't have to bless those marriages. And should I ever get married, I can assure you that no churches will have anything to do with it. So I guess I'd be about as married as a gay person when it comes to those churches?
Yep, but reacting to Travis who asked why is there so few Trumpers here your post seemed to imply that it's because Trumpers = Nazis (or at least most of them), if you know what I mean. Yep, you didn't say that, but the silent implication was what I said is not nice. I realize you probably didn't really mean it that way or that it was meant in jest.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
