Random political thought thread.

[The Cat]

 

[ceecee]

Yes there is such a thing as a livable wage, which defines some sum of money that is needed to have a minimum of survival and preservation of health. Also the jobs that evidently aren't able to provide the livable wage shouldn't be started in the first place. That is the whole point of making livable wage and minimum wage to be in sync. To cut out abuse and the waste of time.



You can't make everyone 100% happy but you can 80% by providing normal life. What is still major improvement in some places.

You're leaving out the seething hatred of the poor in the US. This country has the means to give people the basics and a decent life and could do it instantly. They refuse and this is a policy choice that other poor people actually support. Why? Because it's easier to remain part of the problem and babble about burning it all down.

 

[SD45T-2]

 

[Virtual ghost]

You're leaving out the seething hatred of the poor in the US. This country has the means to give people the basics and a decent life and could do it instantly. They refuse and this is a policy choice that other poor people actually support. Why? Because it's easier to remain part of the problem and babble about burning it all down.

That is another pair of shoes. This is "why", while I was talking more about about "how". In the bottom line my comment was focused on why the basic economic logic of the American right is "questionable". Since the idea that we should all suffer because "that is just how it is" doesn't really stand. This is basically just BS that is repeating through history over and over. Plus as said in the other thread here there is also a certain erosion of the system that goes in American way. However that is causing clear counter-reaction from the public. What manifests in a way that the newly founded coalition between the green party and far left is having a huge surge, over the last year they increased their support for something like ten fold (what is basically a revolution that should be voted in few days from now). When you sum center right and center left and multiply it by 2 they still wouldn't have the support of the green coalition in the polls. Which is running basically on pure anti-neoliberalism: anti-corruption, fixing infrastructure, green new deal, saving/boosting of the welfare system, functional public transportation, support for weak and minorities ... etc. Plus even if they are on the other side of the world they openly supported the BLM. What was certain controversy for some. Just by reactions you can see that some people are freaking out over this, since this is almost surely the end of "business as usual".


Therefore the point of all of my recent posts here is that the things aren't set in stone. Things can really change if you try hard enough or genuinely enough, especially since all of this seems to be dragging many of the none voters out. What possibly makes this to be the most important vote of the generation. Since it marks the creation of new major party and probably a new start.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

You're leaving out the seething hatred of the poor in the US. This country has the means to give people the basics and a decent life and could do it instantly. They refuse and this is a policy choice that other poor people actually support. Why? Because it's easier to remain part of the problem and babble about burning it all down.

I think the hatred of the poor roots back to “the great [religious] awakening” that occurred in colonial times. Our culture was basically shaped by fundamentalist exiles from Europe. Christian fundamentalists literally believe that sickness and mental illness is a fault of those afflicted. That they lacked true belief or faith. A similar attitude explains why the poor are seen as unworthy or lazy, often by other poor who of course refuse to see themselves as such

 

[Virtual ghost]

I think the hatred of the poor roots back to “the great [religious] awakening” that occurred in colonial times. Our culture was basically shaped by fundamentalist exiles from Europe. Christian fundamentalists literally believe that sickness and mental illness is a fault of those afflicted. That they lacked true belief or faith. A similar attitude explains why the poor are seen as unworthy or lazy, often by other poor who of course refuse to see themselves as such

Perhaps to some degree, but I think the practical root is in colonialism and terrain. Wherever the settlers came that was nothing but wilderness and a few natives. Plus the distances where generally large. Therefore the whole system in the start was structured in a pretty lose way and with little guarantees. What kinda stayed as "the law of the land" to this point. In other words the poor are just the means through which you get richer in this "wilderness". Pure "might makes right".

 

[The Cat]

You're leaving out the seething hatred of the poor in the US. This country has the means to give people the basics and a decent life and could do it instantly. They refuse and this is a policy choice that other poor people actually support. Why? Because it's easier to remain part of the problem and babble about burning it all down.

A lot of poor people are conditioned to vote against their interests with smoke screen morality and every single media outlet geared towards us dangles the dishonest carrot of if you obey and keep doing everything "right" you MIGHT get really lucky and make it in from out of the cold. Hope, it dangles on a string like slow spinning redemption...a cruel tease when its just part of someone elses grift. -_-

 

[The Cat]

I think the hatred of the poor roots back to “the great [religious] awakening” that occurred in colonial times. Our culture was basically shaped by fundamentalist exiles from Europe. Christian fundamentalists literally believe that sickness and mental illness is a fault of those afflicted. That they lacked true belief or faith. A similar attitude explains why the poor are seen as unworthy or lazy, often by other poor who of course refuse to see themselves as such

And that's weird because Jesus has never been like that; and in the Bible he teaches loving others and compassion, espouses charity and acts of mercy towards those in need, the poor, the sick, widows, orphans, women, children, criminals, slaves, outcasts, the rejected, etc. those are the real fundamentals, many who claim the faith and title of "Christian" have forgotten the face of their father, if they ever even knew it... -_-

 

[Coriolis]

A lot of poor people are conditioned to vote against their interests with smoke screen morality and every single media outlet geared towards us dangles the dishonest carrot of if you obey and keep doing everything "right" you MIGHT get really lucky and make it in from out of the cold. Hope, it dangles on a string like slow spinning redemption...a cruel tease when its just part of someone elses grift. -_-

One of my favorite fictional characters calls hope "“the denial of reality. It is the carrot dangled before the draft horse to keep him plodding along in a vain attempt to reach it." Another character asks whether he means that people should not have hope. He replies, "I'm saying we should remove the carrot and walk forward with our eyes open!” I quite agree. Voting with the greater good in mind would be wonderful, but things would already be better if people actually voted in their own self-interests. By that I mean: voted for the person or policy who would actually do them the most good.

And that's weird because Jesus has never been like that; and in the Bible he teaches loving others and compassion, espouses charity and acts of mercy towards those in need, the poor, the sick, widows, orphans, women, children, criminals, slaves, outcasts, the rejected, etc. those are the real fundamentals, many who claim the faith and title of "Christian" have forgotten the face of their father, if they ever even knew it... -_-

Exactly. As I have posted elsewhere, that slogan "What Would Jesus Do?", once plastered on everything from necklaces to coffee mugs, quickly went by the wayside. Probably too much for most so-called Christians to live up to.

 

[The Cat]

One of my favorite fictional characters calls hope "“the denial of reality. It is the carrot dangled before the draft horse to keep him plodding along in a vain attempt to reach it." Another character asks whether he means that people should not have hope. He replies, "I'm saying we should remove the carrot and walk forward with our eyes open!” I quite agree. Voting with the greater good in mind would be wonderful, but things would already be better if people actually voted in their own self-interests. By that I mean: voted for the person or policy who would actually do them the most good.


Exactly. As I have posted elsewhere, that slogan "What Would Jesus Do?", once plastered on everything from necklaces to coffee mugs, quickly went by the wayside. Probably too much for most so-called Christians to live up to.

Enlightened self interest is everyone's benefit; but its tragically and profoundly lacking, and to my eyes seems to be bombarded against in nearly every aspect of any media outside of things geared for children(which seems down right sadistic to me to raise children to believe in a better world and way, then spend the rest of their life trying to beat it out of them with the bleak cruelty of the world they'll inherit just so the current wealthy powers can keep vampire draining the rest of us because deep down they secretly believe they can just buy their way out of every consequence, but I digress...)

I believe Mark Twain once observed that we were the "damned human race". And looking around assuming that those who fear change and try to constantly drive society into an idealized version of the past that never existed, will always war with those would go without certainty into an idealized version of a future that may never exist. A house divided against itself cannot stand.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

And that's weird because Jesus has never been like that; and in the Bible he teaches loving others and compassion, espouses charity and acts of mercy towards those in need, the poor, the sick, widows, orphans, women, children, criminals, slaves, outcasts, the rejected, etc. those are the real fundamentals, many who claim the faith and title of "Christian" have forgotten the face of their father, if they ever even knew it... -_-

Fundamentalists interpret the Bible literally. So when they see passages about attaining wealth, they often think of it as material wealth, rather than spiritual wealth.


Fundamentalists also tend to have a massive hard on for the Old Testament, so they tend to be bigger on the whole language of eye for an eye, an angry god, etc. They tend to always pick and choose that shit over the lessons of Jesus (which are quite good and actually applicable to people of all beliefs, including atheists)

 

[Coriolis]

Fundamentalists interpret the Bible literally. So when they see passages about attaining wealth, they often think of it as material wealth, rather than spiritual wealth.

In Matthew 19:24, Jesus says:

Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God."

In Matthew 6:19-21 he says:

Do not store up riches for yourselves here on earth, where moths and rust destroy, and robbers break in and steal. Instead, store up riches for yourselves in heaven, where moths and rust cannot destroy, and robbers cannot break in and steal. For your heart will always be where your riches are.

It doesn't get much clearer or more literal than this. The rich will have a very hard time getting to heaven, and people shouldn't bother hoarding wealth on earth.

Of course, this presumes the reader cares what Jesus has to say, and wants to follow it.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

In Matthew 19:24, Jesus says:

It doesn't get much clearer or more literal than this. The rich will have a very hard time getting to heaven.

That never stops evangelists and fundamentalists from seeking wealth and worshipping the capitalist model though.

I think many of them just don’t read the Bible. Actually, I know this, having been a member of an evangelical church years ago

 

[Coriolis]

That never stops evangelists and fundamentalists from seeking wealth and worshipping the capitalist model though.

I think many of them just don’t read the Bible. Actually, I know this, having been a member of an evangelical church years ago

And I thought it was Catholics who didn't bother actually to read the Bible.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

And I thought it was Catholics who didn't bother actually to read the Bible.

I’ve met my share of people from evangelical churches who look at you funny or don’t know what you’re talking about if you reference the Bible.

 

[Lark]

Fundamentalists interpret the Bible literally. So when they see passages about attaining wealth, they often think of it as material wealth, rather than spiritual wealth.


Fundamentalists also tend to have a massive hard on for the Old Testament, so they tend to be bigger on the whole language of eye for an eye, an angry god, etc. They tend to always pick and choose that shit over the lessons of Jesus (which are quite good and actually applicable to people of all beliefs, including atheists)

Jesus never contradicted anything in the old testament though, properly understood the old and the new testament contrast how lawful good and chaotic good contrast.

An eye for an eye is a tale about proportionality, what it is telling you is that you cant take a life for an eye but meanings are lost altogether or they are revised in accordance with fashionable opinions.

God was only ever angry because of transgressive behaviour, behaviour which was either lawful, neutral or chaotic evil.

 

[Lark]

And I thought it was Catholics who didn't bother actually to read the Bible.

You'd be really wrong thinking that. In fact why would you think that?

 

[Kephalos]

It's good to point out the ignorance and hypocrisy of biblical literalists. But, call it a hot take, but I'd rather Christians did not follow or ignored many, if not most, biblical passages from Genesis to Revelation.

 

[Lark]

It's good to point out the ignorance and hypocrisy of biblical literalists. But, call it a hot take, but I'd rather Christians did not follow or ignored many, if not most, biblical passages from Genesis to Revelation.

Its hard to be literal about something when the meaning isnt plain, its why solo scripture is a mistake and actually why reading scripture per se wasnt popularized for a long time.

 

[Coriolis]

You'd be really wrong thinking that. In fact why would you think that?

In studying comparitive religion, I learned that Bible reading was much more emphasized by Protestant denominations. This is why the sermon was a much more important component of Sunday worship, vs. the music and ritual of Catholics. Believers were expected and enjoined to read the Bible, and ministers used often lengthy and detailed sermons to tell them how to interpret it and what it meant for their lives. This is not unrelated to translation of the Bible into the vernacular, and development of the printing press, enabling everyone to own a copy. The Catholic tradition preserved worship in Latin until well into the last century, a tradition I personally find beautiful and meaningful, but which doesn't help believers engage with Biblical texts directly. Stories instead were presented in artwork (stained glass, statuary), and Biblical knowledge was long the realm of clergy.

I know much of this has changed in the modern age, now that people are literate, Bibles are readily available, and Catholics and Protestants live side by side. I grew up Catholic, and we did learn about the Bible in Sunday School - the atrocious CCD classes American kids were sent to. We were never given Bibles, like our protestant friends and schoolmates, though, it wasn't a priority. My church - a large one in an active archdiocese - never held a Bible study for adults. Christian education focused on being faithful to God and being a good person - valuable lessons illustrated as often using popular culture as Bible stories. Sermons were rudimentary, perfunctory, even, except for when a seminary professor visited to say Mass. The only topic emphasized less than the Bible was church history. I learned that in (secular) college. As a longtime church musician, I have seen much different treatment of the Bible in the many protestant churches where I have played. Even the smallest will emphasize Bible study for all ages, often giving Bibles to young people at Confirmation. My own knowledge of the Bible comes largely from taking some of these classes. I do not even count myself a Christian any longer, but I am happy to be familiar with a book that has had such a significant influence on humanity.

Its hard to be literal about something when the meaning isnt plain, its why solo scripture is a mistake and actually why reading scripture per se wasnt popularized for a long time.

As related in the Bible, I find Jesus' meaning to be quite plain. It is also not an easy message to live up to. No surprise people prefer to obfuscate it or twist it into something unintended.