These two things piss me the f**k off

[Consept]

Just need to vent, I like to think theres not too much that causes emotions to spike for me but Ive noticed these two specific things just piss me off. 

1. Blatant hypocrisy - We're all guilty of saying one thing and acting the opposite way even if we consciously try not to do this, but when the hypocrisy is blatant and theres not even an attempt hide it, its almost unbelievable for me. Case in point, the conversation around the Trump assassination has been conservatives insinuating or even outright claiming, that all this aggressive rhetoric is coming from the left and it is what has led to the attempt on Trump. Not taking into account at all the jokes they made about Pelosi's husband getting hit with a hammer and the obvious firing up of maga that led to them storming the capital. Destiny has pointed it out, although i dont agree with how hes done it his point is basically highlighting the hypocrisy which is 100% valid. 

Worse is that people who have left comments on social media saying things like 'They should have hit him square' are being targeted and losing their jobs by the mob, even though this mob is supposedly completely against cancel culture, not only that what theyre doing to the people is objectively worse than the initial comment! My brain cant compute the level of hypocrisy. 

This is an example of the hypocrisy im talking of - 

 

2. People not understanding racism - A story came out where an Argentine football player got in trouble for gleefully singing a racist chant about the French team not really being French because the heritage is African (ill post a vid below to explain). Obviously this a racist message, essentially saying you dont beling in the country because your black so you cant be really from that country, despite the fact that Argentinian people are the least indigenous country in South America, most if not all their ancestors are from Germany and Italy. What gets me though is looking at the comments on these type of videos some people dont even get why its racist or why it might be offensive. There seems to be such disconnect there in terms of understanding another's experience. On a personal level it gets to me because its an attitude ive experienced a lot even though im not particularly outspoken about racism, its the feeling of being looked at as though you dont belong. Same thing is happening with European football teams, the English football team for example has about 11 black players and when you see people talking about it they speak like its a bad thing, but then if people complain about that sentiment they say 'its because your woke' or 'we need to control immigration better'. I'm disgusted in these people, I can rationalize it and be empathetic in that they are very fearful people and obviously for them to get into this rhetoric they are easy to manipulate and they themselves dont have empathy which is sad. But then also theres a part of me that just thinks Fuck them. 

Anyway, probably too much time on the internet, im gonna go work out and release some of this energy!

 

[gambler]

I’ll speak to your first point. I share in your frustration about the hypocrisy of the right. It was cringe when the right became this party that’s allegedly “the party of free speech”. This is the same group that was pleased with having people like Mahmoud Abdul Rauf, Helen Thomas, and Phil Donahue cancelled back in the pre-social media days. This is also the same party that expected people to be politically correct when it came to critiques against America, where the PC thing to do is to be “patriotic” and nationalistic. They also whine about identity politics and anti-white rhetoric but are completely unrestrained to play identity politics and engage in racism when they want to, like when Ben Shapiro infamously tweeted that Jews love to build while Arabs love to live in open sewage; and therefore the choice to back one ethnic group’s expansion of settlements at the expense of the other should be an easy one for everyone to make. 
 

So none of this is surprising to any of us. We all saw this coming the moment they started fronting as if they were standing up for principles. They don’t stand for principles, they're tribal, they stand for their team. That’s how it’s always been. It also used to be that the left was good at making the right look stupid when highlighting their hypocrisy. Nowadays it doesn’t feel like that’s the case, probably because the cultural ideals of the left has since moved further away from what a lot of people are comfortable with. 

Edited July 18 by gambler

[zurew]

The libs of tiktok account on x is insane. She manage to doxx at least 5 people so far and she managed to   get them fired from their jobs. Other than that, yeah conservatives crying about violent rhetoric when they have been engaging in violent rhetoric is truly a masterpiece.

Mainstream conservative figures have been spreading around and reposting multiple conspiracy theories that would make any person who genuinely  believe in any of them ,  incredibly riled up and violent. No matter if they have 0 evidence for any of their speculations - they have an urge to spin literally every news or event or story and manage to connect them back to an adverserial narrative or explanation.  There is no event in the world that they wouldn't connect back to some negative narrative. They lack the capacity to explain any news or event without there being something nefarious in the background. 

The vast majority of conservative figures have never cared about being responsbile with their speculation or messaging and they don't hold each other accountable for the tin foil hat level speculation, they rather rile each other up and push insane conspiracy theories. And the reason for that is because their audience don't care at all about holding those people accountable.  They cant differentiate between an inference and a fact.and  because of that they confuse their inferences with reality and they think their inferences are all pure undeniable facts.

When 99% of your messaging is about that the election is stolen, all institutions are corrupt to the point where every member of each institutions and all secret service agencies are all behind  the big plan;   they want to kill you with the vaccines, they created a bioweapon and want to reduce down the world population by billions of people, they are using chemtrails and they are poisioning the water and your food to reduce down the fertility rate and to make you sick, they want to take away your rights and want to make you eat bugs, they will take away your jobs,  they will take away your ownership ,  they will cancel you , they will groom your kids because they are pedophiles and groomers, they will forcibly put microchips and nanorobots in you,  they will make your kids cut their genitalia off, they will make you depressed and put you on harmful medication , they are behind the assasination attempt of Trump, they are sacrificing kids and worshipping the devil and Moloch , I just couldn't care less about their tone policing.

 

 

When you have a party that pushes a rhetoric like above and when you have a party full of people who genuinely believe in most of the things that I listed above,I don't see what possible standing they can have in tone policing the left in any shape or form. Not to mention, that the right is notorious for using racial slurs and making edgy jokes.

The scary part is that people on the right couldn't get more insane with their rhetoric. How could they possibly elevate their rhetoric? They have been spouting  the most insane  conspiracy theories to the point where it would be hard to imagine a world that would be worse than the one that they have managed to dream up in their minds.

The best fiction writer would have a hard time going against MAGA people. As much as conservatives mostly only value stem degrees and constantly shit on the value of an art degree and creative jobs in general, they should be fiction writers, because they  are good at coming up with the most outrageous and insane narratives, stories and explanations.

Edited July 18 by zurew

[vibv]

Rage puts one in a position of powerlessness, because that's where that emotion comes from. Everything leads to where it comes from, so to speak.

I speak from experience, cause I'm easily angered, too. But it's never done me any good. Instead I should put that energy into action that's actually powerful.

Another way to put it: Create instead of react.

[Consept]

2 hours ago, gambler said:

So none of this is surprising to any of us. We all saw this coming the moment they started fronting as if they were standing up for principles. They don’t stand for principles, they're tribal, they stand for their team. That’s how it’s always been. It also used to be that the left was good at making the right look stupid when highlighting their hypocrisy. Nowadays it doesn’t feel like that’s the case, probably because the cultural ideals of the left has since moved further away from what a lot of people are comfortable with. 

Yeah I agree its not surprising. Although the left has become more progressive i think the big change is that the right has gone nearly full mask off, in that before if they were caught out in a blatant there would be consequences. Now its this 'post-truth' reality where they can just completely spin anything no matter how ridiculous. Nixon had to resign following the watergate scandal and Clinton was impeached for the Lewinsky affair which left a stain on his legacy, these things are just a normal week for Trump with minimal consequences. Its especially strange because the right is the side of conservative values, yet this guy is getting a pass to bang porn stars and chill with Epstein, its actually insanity. So now when the left does make them look stupid it doesnt hit hard because they dont actually stand for anything anymore. 

@zurew lol exactly, the funny thing is in that Destiny Piers Morgan debate, the people on the panel on the right were going on Destiny but couldnt actually admit that Trump lied about the election being stolen. How can you be accusing someone of something youre literally doing at the same time?

1 hour ago, vibv said:

Rage puts one in a position of powerlessness, because that's where that emotion comes from. Everything leads to where it comes from, so to speak.

I speak from experience, cause I'm easily angered, too. But it's never done me any good. Instead I should put that energy into action that's actually powerful.

Another way to put it: Create instead of react.

I feel you man, I wouldnt say im easily angered generally but some things i just find so annoying. But youre right its a ll about channelling that energy for good 

[Brittany]

8 hours ago, gambler said:

It also used to be that the left was good at making the right look stupid when highlighting their hypocrisy. Nowadays it doesn’t feel like that’s the case, probably because the cultural ideals of the left has since moved further away from what a lot of people are comfortable with. 

Alex O'Connor isn't American and I am not sure if he is left wing?

But he is a good example of someone who is challenging the right and calling out their hypocrisy.

With the uprising of Christian nationalism, we are going to need more people like Alex O'Connor who know the Bible inside and out and can debunk the hypocrisy from the right. It's funny because Alex originally studied the Bible to debunk "sincere Christians" and now he is using his knowledge to debunk the people who are "pretending to be Christian to get people to vote for their side".

Alex O'Connor's recent interview with Jordan Peterson was extremely embarrassing for Jordan.

And his interview with Richard Dawkins was good too.

 

 

Edited July 18 by Brittany

[Consept]

@Brittany a lot of his views are left generally but yeah great example I actually think his debate and conversational skills are top level and he genuinely talks to all sides in good faith. 

[Danioover9000]

@Brittany

5 hours ago, Brittany said:

Alex O'Connor isn't American and I am not sure if he is left wing?

But he is a good example of someone who is challenging the right and calling out their hypocrisy.

With the uprising of Christian nationalism, we are going to need more people like Alex O'Connor who know the Bible inside and out and can debunk the hypocrisy from the right. It's funny because Alex originally studied the Bible to debunk "sincere Christians" and now he is using his knowledge to debunk the people who are "pretending to be Christian to get people to vote for their side".

Alex O'Connor's recent interview with Jordan Peterson was extremely embarrassing for Jordan.

And his interview with Richard Dawkins was good too.

 

 

   Alex O Conor is a bit left leaning and an Irish. He's actually from the UK and not American and has that posh facade. Main gripe I have with him is he's from the new atheist movement with people like Matt Dillahunty whom I dislike. And Matt Dillahunty lost to a guy called Andrew Wilson, which IMHO is one of the greats of debating especially online debaters of botb the right and left, un fact one of the few that kept on winning against Destiny in various debates despite his sick fanbase silencing Andrew Wilson just because he's 'big papa fascist' and not listening carefully to how solid his arguments are. For example can you argue for a universal morality independent of religion? Can you independently source morality and ethical codes without rules from the bible and holy books? Without a priest or organized religion or without theocracy happening first? Legit argument points most new atheists struggle to answer really well.

   And in both my and Andrew's opinion Jordan Peterson is just too sophistry and fluff with words, and he actually. IDK what he thinks of Alex O Conor but I likely think he'd even categorize Alex as having that same sophistry and talking in philosophical ways like Jordan Peterson.

   Would be bice to see Alex and Andrew debate, as he's more direct and clear arguing style, interesting to see how well Alex could handle his attacking style.

Edited July 19 by Danioover9000

[zurew]

3 hours ago, Danioover9000 said:

For example can you argue for a universal morality independent of religion? Can you independently source morality and ethical codes without rules from the bible and holy books? Without a priest or organized religion or without theocracy happening first? Legit argument points most new atheists struggle to answer really well.

Andrew the "big debater" likes to debate college kids, but he has never had any debate with any philosopher ever.

1)Objective morality is the weakest ever argument he can ever come up with. God doesn't solve objective morality, because it is still dependent on a subject (subject being God) and not stance independently true, but Andrew is not educated on the subject enough to recognize that level 1 mistake. Objective morality would mean there are moral facts that are stance independently true meaning it doesn't matter what any subject (including God) feels about it, thinks about it,  or prefers us to do in any given context. 

2) Even if no atheist could come up with an answer to the question of how could objective morality be true, that alone doesn't establish that it is impossible to come up with an answer to that question , and it doesn't establish how being religious solves that question.

3) Why is there a need for objective morality? Even if we could establish that there are moral facts that are stance independently true, most people would still go with their preferences, and with their own subjective moral intuitions, because why wouldn't they? 

Edited July 19 by zurew

[Chadders]

@Consept That is understandable. A lot of people just don’t have the consciousness to connect the dots with hypocrisy and consider the impact of racism. There’s a lot of generational trauma 

Okay to get pissed off about it the only thing is that people are the way they are because of their upbringing and the people who influenced them. Nobody is born a racist they just become one through poor conscious development 

[Danioover9000]

@zurew

7 hours ago, zurew said:

Andrew the "big debater" likes to debate college kids, but he has never had any debate with any philosopher ever.

1)Objective morality is the weakest ever argument he can ever come up with. God doesn't solve objective morality, because it is still dependent on a subject (subject being God) and not stance independently true, but Andrew is not educated on the subject enough to recognize that level 1 mistake. Objective morality would mean there are moral facts that are stance independently true meaning it doesn't matter what any subject (including God) feels about it, thinks about it,  or prefers us to do in any given context. 

2) Even if no atheist could come up with an answer to the question of how could objective morality be true, that alone doesn't establish that it is impossible to come up with an answer to that question , and it doesn't establish how being religious solves that question.

3) Why is there a need for objective morality? Even if we could establish that there are moral facts that are stance independently true, most people would still go with their preferences, and with their own subjective moral intuitions, because why wouldn't they? 

1. Right, and secularism/atheism led to western countries all being too much egalitarianism, feminism, multiculturalism, and led to Neo liberalism destabilizing foreign countries and 3rd world theocracies which led to mass immigration. Also Atheism and secularism led to legal abortions, that's fine, but some western countries did too much abortions leading to rapid decline in birthrates, and state sanction marriages and divorces led to higher rates of divorces. All this basically means that atheists don't have a good answer and they want a western country devoid of Christianity and any religions, yet they ALWAYS happen to borrow and treat the bible as some source of inspiration, borrow the Judeo-Christian values which are the foundations of most western countries that are based on, like the constitution and so on. This all as I understood his position, he's not here to refute your objections but if he was you're in trouble because he's the better debater.

2. You can argue about the true nature of objective morality all you want until you turn ashen, but Andrew Wilson's position as I understood it is more pragmatic, that it's far better to PRETEND there's a god or some divine figure to base your morality from, and it's more important to have these rules and enforce them into it's place.

3. Why is there a need for objective morality? Maybe so that you have a higher percentage of others not doing evil BS and crimes onto you like stealing, killing, assaulting sexually, damaging your home, kidnapping your children and wife, and many other evil actions because that organized religion/state have these things which we call LAWS and ETHICAL CODES that that society ABIDES BY, so that any evil action if caught you'll get PUNISHED! And the fear of getting PUNISHED and jailed for a crime, that fear of the future, ideally prevents more crimes. For example the punishment of theft is one hand getting chopped off, and that fear forces the potential thief to either a) get very good at theft or b) don't steal in the first place and do something productive to your society, for example.

[Danioover9000]

@Consept

21 hours ago, Consept said:

Yeah I agree its not surprising. Although the left has become more progressive i think the big change is that the right has gone nearly full mask off, in that before if they were caught out in a blatant there would be consequences. Now its this 'post-truth' reality where they can just completely spin anything no matter how ridiculous. Nixon had to resign following the watergate scandal and Clinton was impeached for the Lewinsky affair which left a stain on his legacy, these things are just a normal week for Trump with minimal consequences. Its especially strange because the right is the side of conservative values, yet this guy is getting a pass to bang porn stars and chill with Epstein, its actually insanity. So now when the left does make them look stupid it doesnt hit hard because they dont actually stand for anything anymore. 

@zurew lol exactly, the funny thing is in that Destiny Piers Morgan debate, the people on the panel on the right were going on Destiny but couldnt actually admit that Trump lied about the election being stolen. How can you be accusing someone of something youre literally doing at the same time?

I feel you man, I wouldnt say im easily angered generally but some things i just find so annoying. But youre right its a ll about channelling that energy for good 

   I watched that debate and honestly it was a very bad look for Destiny. I get what he's trying to do, ex fan here for decade of him, I get his trying to outrage the public to get more clicks and views and get a discussion going on, but this time like just within 24 hours of making fun of a firefighter and a Dad who shielded his wife and daughter from the shooter's bullet and died, and Destiny there who also is a father making fun of this and going after the daughter's tweet was CRINGE AND DISGUSTING! On this specific context Destiny loses that argument as it's highly immoral, in this specific context it is disgusting! But he's also right on the big picture that a subset of conservatives online do make dark jokes onto left wing people, online. I really wished he handled it differently because now he's getting the heat and getting clowned on by EVERYONE left right and center!

   The debate and how Destiny tries to justify his actions were just so bad that I hate Piers Morgan but I was routing for him to attack Destiny more and really expose him, and I was siding with the other panelists because they were making more sense with this specific context!

Edited July 19 by Danioover9000

[zurew]

1 hour ago, Danioover9000 said:

1. Right, and secularism/atheism led to western countries all being too much egalitarianism, feminism, multiculturalism, and led to Neo liberalism destabilizing foreign countries and 3rd world theocracies which led to mass immigration. Also Atheism and secularism led to legal abortions, that's fine, but some western countries did too much abortions leading to rapid decline in birthrates, and state sanction marriages and divorces led to higher rates of divorces. All this basically means that atheists don't have a good answer and they want a western country devoid of Christianity and any religions, yet they ALWAYS happen to borrow and treat the bible as some source of inspiration, borrow the Judeo-Christian values which are the foundations of most western countries that are based on, like the constitution and so on. This all as I understood his position, he's not here to refute your objections but if he was you're in trouble because he's the better debater.

You do realize that you wrote all of that and none of that intereacts with the paragraph that I wrote? Again atheism or theism or secularism has nothing to do with whether objective morality exist or not. Theism can be true and objective morality can be still false and atheism can be true and objective morality be true as well. 

The truth value of objective morality is independent from theism and from atheism.

1 hour ago, Danioover9000 said:

2. You can argue about the true nature of objective morality all you want until you turn ashen, but Andrew Wilson's position as I understood it is more pragmatic, that it's far better to PRETEND there's a god or some divine figure to base your morality from, and it's more important to have these rules and enforce them into it's place.

Sure but that has nothing to do with objective morality, that just about what is pragmatically better or best for a given goal.

Speaking of goals, this is goalpost moving . The original claim or objection about atheists not being able to ground morality would have to be conceded.

1 hour ago, Danioover9000 said:

3. Why is there a need for objective morality? Maybe so that you have a higher percentage of others not doing evil BS and crimes onto you like stealing, killing, assaulting sexually, damaging your home, kidnapping your children and wife, and many other evil actions because that organized religion/state have these things which we call LAWS and ETHICAL CODES that that society ABIDES BY, so that any evil action if caught you'll get PUNISHED! And the fear of getting PUNISHED and jailed for a crime, that fear of the future, ideally prevents more crimes. For example the punishment of theft is one hand getting chopped off, and that fear forces the potential thief to either a) get very good at theft or b) don't steal in the first place and do something productive to your society, for example.

You can do all those things without objective morality. You can punish people and you can create laws and ethical codes.

Objective morality doesn't change anything and it doesn't give you any good reason not to go by your own preferences and with your own moral intuitions.

IF you don't want people to commit certain things, that just gonna be a psychological question about how to change behaviour, it isn't a moral question.

Again remember: objective morality means there are moral facts that are stance independently true (that are true, regardless of the attitude of any subject - regardless what any subject thinks or feels about those facts) 

If there is an objective moral fact that "killing people is good", I wouldn't care about it, because my subjective moral intuitions go against it .

Edited July 19 by zurew

[Danioover9000]

@zurew

48 minutes ago, zurew said:

You do realize that you wrote all of that and none of that intereacts with the paragraph that I wrote? Again atheism or theism or secularism has nothing to do with whether objective morality exist or not. Theism can be true and objective morality can be still false and atheism can be true and objective morality be true as well. 

The truth value of objective morality is independent from theism and from atheism.

Sure but that has nothing to do with objective morality, that just about what is pragmatically better or best for a given goal.

Speaking of goals, this is goalpost moving . The original claim or objection about atheists not being able to ground morality would have to be conceded.

You can do all those things without objective morality. You can punish people and you can create laws and ethical codes.

Objective morality doesn't change anything and it doesn't give you any good reason not to go by your own preferences and with your own moral intuitions.

IF you don't want people to commit certain things, that just gonna be a psychological question about how to change behaviour, it isn't a moral question.

Again remember: objective morality means there are moral facts that are stance independently true (that are true, regardless of the attitude of any subject - regardless what any subject thinks or feels about those facts) 

If there is an objective moral fact that "killing people is good", I wouldn't care about it, because my subjective moral intuitions go against it .

1. I wrote all of that to contextualize your paragraph of nothing.

2. Objectively speaking Christian morality is better than any subjective moral relativism of a criminal that thinks it's behavior is morally better. Those that believed the raping, killings, stealing, kidnapping, owning slaves were morally subjectively better than Christian orthodoxy and theocracy, what happened to those people? They got punished by a much better collective objective morality, from theocracy. And once again you are dodging the question of how do humanists, secularists and atheists source their morality from? Because there's a lot of borrowing from Judeo-Christian values going on, but rebranding them as some new atheist movement. Also look at what the Spanish settlers the Catholics did to the Mayans when the Mayans thought their human sacrificing was morally better than Judeo-Christians.

3. You are dodging the questions on declining birthrates and high divorce rates since the separation of church and state. Why such high divorce rates and low birthrates? Why do most western societies have to source from 3rd world theocracies?

[zurew]

@Danioover9000 Im done interacting with you buddy, you are on my ignore list (just for you to know so that you won't try to respond to any of my posts in the future). You are bad faith and you don't even try to respond to the points that I made.

Read back the whole conversation and you might realize that you were incapable to respond to any of the points that I made. You made a claim about universal morality, then I directly responded to that claim and then you completely pivoted away from your original claim and tried to change the subject and started to ramble about secularism and about other things , none of which have anything to do with the original claim.

1 hour ago, Danioover9000 said:

1. I wrote all of that to contextualize your paragraph of nothing.

You didn't contextualize anything, you started to go off and started to spiral  out about a completely different subject .

For you to contextualize what I said, you would have to have some concept of objective morality, but based on the responses you made, you don't have the slightest concept of what objective morality is . Your long ramblings about birth rates and secularism and immigration have nothing to do with the topic of objective morality and have nothing to do with whether objective morality can exist without religion, but go off king, Im sure in your head you managed to connect all that rambling back  to your original claim.

1 hour ago, Danioover9000 said:

2. Objectively speaking Christian morality is better than any subjective moral relativism of a criminal that thinks it's behavior is morally better. Those that believed the raping, killings, stealing, kidnapping, owning slaves were morally subjectively better than Christian orthodoxy and theocracy, what happened to those people? They got punished by a much better collective objective morality, from theocracy. And once again you are dodging the question of how do humanists, secularists and atheists source their morality from? Because there's a lot of borrowing from Judeo-Christian values going on, but rebranding them as some new atheist movement. Also look at what the Spanish settlers the Catholics did to the Mayans when the Mayans thought their human sacrificing was morally better than Judeo-Christians.

3. You are dodging the questions on declining birthrates and high divorce rates since the separation of church and state. Why such high divorce rates and low birthrates? Why do most western societies have to source from 3rd world theocracies?

You do realize when you say x morality is better than y , that statement is completely meaningless, right? The term "better" there means nothing unless the context or the goal is specified . X is better than Y with respect to achieving goal Z. Filling that template out would make your statements more meaningful, but I know you have a habit of gibberating around while thinking you are making some deep point.

None of your questions have anything to do with objective morality.  I could answer all of your questions and we would literally progress nothing in answering objective morality. Its all just obfuscation and pivoting on your part.

Even if all of society sourced their morals from Christianity that still wouldn't change anything related to  whether objective morality is true or not or related to whether religion is necessary for objective morality. Asking the questions that you asked, is as useful in progessing answering  the question of objective morality as if I would ask you how much money do you think I have in the bank or how much I managed to shit in the toilet yesterday - 0 relevance in  changing or in figuring out the the truth value of the original proposition.

Edited July 19 by zurew