Who decided that it was "sinful" to be "racist"?
Who decided that it was "sinful" to say or think anything negative about gays?
Who decided it was "sinful" to say or think anything negative about trans?
Who decided it was "sinful" to say or think that women have a different role to men?
Why? Why can't we say or think these things?. No where in the bible does it say any of this is a sin. Quite the opposite. So who decided they were to be "sins"?
Even here we have rule 15 and rule 16. Why the fuck do we have rule 15 and rule 16?
British, American and Jewish elites after WWII made the conscious decision to make racism a sin so the great holohaux never happened again and so each country could maximize slave labor with less racial fighting.
Every item you list are moral arguments.
In every case the moral position was assigned by the Anointed, because they decided they were Bad.™ As you say, there is no biblical basis for these moral judgements, so that automatically means they were not made on the basis of Christianity.
jews
there's no shadowy cabal, no lizard people, no demons, no aliens
it's that simple, pretty boring really
Well...
Essentially after WW2 when two seperate groups of people took it REALLY too far (though you could add Japanese internment to the list along with Unit 731 and Holocaust), it created enough of a shock and scare of 'that's what it leads to' that it created an opening to use the 'guilt and fear' that lingered afterwards to essentially use racism the same way we apply sin, as a means of coercion to compel a group to act a certain way.
That's the race side, the other shit like gays, women being different and trans is because of the success of using race this way and the downfall of the importance of faith in the west, it led to an opening for 'a new religion' which is what the left have created. A secular Church that views the whites as the devil along with EVERYTHING he created sinful and that it is virtuous to endorse ANYTHING that harms him including wrecking the family structure with feminism, trans and gay promotion.
Racism is a victim ideology that taps into the historical framework of the West in worshiping oppressed minority groups (Christianity/socialism), which then metastasized into all the other -isms and -phobias.
Now-a-days it has turned into neo-Marxism, where class distinctions have been replaced with victim groups.
The 🧃 decided everything. It comes in several different flavors and they all suck!
Obligatory
The real fun starts when you ask yourself why rule 16 includes the word 'conspiring'.
To provide a reason to give Imp frequent vacations.
The sheer comedic irony of Imp's pet conspiracy [wahmenz]...
...juxtaposed with that other conspiracy [((()))] he can't entertain, even momentarily for the sake of argument, is worth all the 'rest' that he needs to keep the hilarity coming.
it really depends on the core moral philosophy that you base these items on. most liberals attempt to live by one common moral philosophy: "be kind to others".
applying this philosophy, it's easy to see why things from racism to gender roles can be considered bad. in some cases it is demeaning another individual on the basis of an immutable trait, while in other cases is forcing a lifestyle onto an individual that may not want it.
of course, most political leftists also subscribe to this philosophy: "there are no bad tactics, only bad targets". this philosophy allows them to ignore the philosophy of being kind to others so long as it suits the political objective.
Liberals live by no such principle save in the lies they tell themselves. They do so explicitly so they can blithely ignore the incalculable victims of leftist policies, including the people that they all seek to turn into tax chattel.
Unless forced to act responsibly, the main principles people follow are laziness and cowardliness. Except for the few militant religious pacifists, most people claim to be peace loving and non-violent so they can avoid conflict. Some people even use it as cover for their own bad actions.
I think that has always been the case for most commoners but modern liberalism enshrines it as philosophy. A religion that makes us feel better for nothing doing.
Which is the Crux of the "being peaceful while incapable of violence isn't Virtue, its being owned" argument is from.
It's a biblical concept, be innocent as doves but shrewd as vipers. Give no man reason to question your integrity. But when conflict arises you better not fucking lose.
It shows up in a number of martial arts, most notably Jeet Kune Do, the best course or action is 90% of the time to not engage for various reasons. Expertise is when you've reach that point, and everything previous is masturbation.
you are confusing liberals with leftists, which is a pretty common mistake especially in the United States. it doesn't help that right wing media keeps using liberal as a catch-all term for Democrat voters.
There is no meaningful difference between them.
A liberal is a leftist is a socialist is a communist. They're all shit, and while some might want to make differentiations between the texture, color or viscosity of one kind of shit from the other, all I need to know about shit is that I don't want it on my shoes. Nuance is unnecessary when dealing with shit.
that's some crusaders fallacy shit right there. especially in a battle of ideas, it is important to be able to accurately represent the ideas of your opposition so that you can properly counter it.
socialism and communism are extremely anti-liberal. many people who call themselves liberals can more accurately be described as socialist or communist because they are fixated on results and not method.
It's not a battle of ideas, that I refuse to touch the poop.
The reason why we are mixing liberal and leftists is because leftists control the media and all the other institutions. They are the ones that have shifted what it means to be a liberal, what was once a liberal value, colorblindness is now a far-right talking point. This was not done by any right wing media.
Liberals at the end, are not even true believers in kindness, they are just grandstanding moral values to feel superior to others. The more I talk to liberals the more I realize that they have no value other then "being liberal". I've watched my friends turn from "freedom of speech" to we must control "speech", from government and corporations are the enemy to the government is good and we need more taxes and corporations are somehow both their allies and their enemies. From pro-borders to anti-borders.
They did not change because the data changed, they changed because the definition of liberal changed and all they know is they are liberal, they are the "kind ones", "the smart ones", the virtuous. The rest are just details they need to fill in in order to belong.
You can tell I'm correct when they care more about slavery 100 years ago then slavery today, they care more about virtue signaling on climate then facts on climate, same with COVID, they still burry their head in the sand while they got boosted and even vaccinated their kids just to show how much they trust the science.
True liberals no longer identify as liberals, that what happens when someone controls the definition.
I don't play their games, and if the past 4 years have taught me anything it's that they can redefine anything they want, but that doesn't make it true. if you accept their redefinitions, you play into the Orwellian dystopian future were your kids won't even be able to think about opposition because a word for it doesn't exist.
That does not matter to my point, you said it was right wing media is the reason why liberal and leftists get mixed and that is false. You holding on to the old definition of liberal is completely irrelevant. My small rant was trying to make a point that most liberals had no liberal values so when the left changed the definition it took most of liberals with them.
We can still use old-school liberals but what is the point? Old-school liberal talking points are now far-right talking points.
I wonder why the left tries to shy away from any discussion regarding these topics. You’d think a group so fixated on being correct all the time would be licking their chops for some “dumb righty” to come in and get put in their place.
But they can’t have their views challenged and nuance is a big nono. My undergrad roommate was black and I came from a predominantly white town in Nebraska. We ended up becoming close friends and he was even the best man at my wedding, and I’m very glad to have been able to comfortably have talks about race that otherwise wouldn’t have happened otherwise.
But it’s become taboo to even discuss these things like they shouldn’t exist. Yeah everyone is different and only by asking questions do we actually learn something instead of tossing $50 to BLM and putting a rainbow filter on social media.
This is just the lie these commies use to get idiots to support them. They will say or do anything, so long as they think it benefits them or harms their enemies. "No bad tactics, only bad targets" is one of the few times one of them was really truthful about how leftoids behave.
Communists are not liberals. they piss on the more philosophy of liberalism. they are the opposite of liberals in fact.
You're just being pedantic now. The people calling themselves "liberals" now are communists, whether you like it or not.
I won't accept their redefinitions. liberalism is an ideal that promotes freedom of individuals. communism and socialism encourage the forced equality of individuals by nationalizing their stuff. these ideals are not compatible.
It's not about redefining anything. They refer to themselves as that. Since they have the power, anyone using that term is effectively associating themselves with the communists using it now.
I can refer to myself as the holy King of France, but that does not make it true.
Let me know if you ever find another site similar to reddit without rule 15 and rule 16
Middle eastern countries usually dont have that and I wouldnt want to live there. Once something is sinful in a religion or ideology it will be used to discriminate. We learned that in the years before WW2 and in current times with DEI hiring we see it again. Being a white man is sinful for the progressives because they are in their way.
Because specific problems stem from specific groups and if people are able to discuss that openly and honestly they might actually come up with solutions to said problems and we simply can't have that. No sir, we must maintain eternal strife and unrest.
What do you mean by racist?
If you mean "believing in differences between the races", fine, but if you mean " believing certain races are morally/spiritually/overall superior to others", then that's refuted by the Bible in multiple places (see Colossians 3:11, Galatians 3:28, Ephesians 2:13-17). The idea that the races are on some fundamental level equal to each other is an inherently Christian idea.
It's the same principle that DEI/woke/diversity hires is sinful. If you don't judge individuals on their own actual merits you'll get incompetent people in charge, or miss out on opportunities, or just in general you're cutting your nose off to spite your face.
So the "sin" part is self-harm.
It's like if you're sick and the black surgeon is actually the best at the procedure and you choose the lesser surgeon that's not black then you've done yourself a harm.
Problem is life is a game of odds. In a perfectly meritocratic world your black and white surgeons would be on average the same skill level, but in especially a woke world you're the dumbest person alive if you let a black surgeon operate on you. But when there's little downside to giving people a chance to prove themselves then you should do that.
Different religions have different sins.
I've been saying for years that this is a nascent religion; it's now got its saints (St Trayvon of Skittles and St Floyd of Fentanyl) and a name (Woke/Wokeism, which actually stems from a cult that was an extremist offshoot of the Nation of Islam in the 1970s, there's a Parcast Cults episode about it) ....
All it needs is a god, and we're beginning to see who THAT is.
And Satan has a human head. I don't know who that goat-headed dude is. It's not Pan, either, because he doesn't have wings no matter what head he wears. Basically, trying to put a goat's head on Satan is like putting a sheep's head on Jesus. (And no, St Christopher as a dog-head is different in that it's not symbology, or symbolic association, he was literally supposed to have been a Kynokephali, a race/species of dog-headed humanoids. Though whether those were supposed to be literal or not is kind of lost to time, but any mention of them treats them as real.)
Also: It's envious of the Catholic Church because it wants to BE the (medieval) Catholic Church - globalist, and holding all the cards of power behind the politicians and businessmen. (Think of what a coronation is - the practice is a usurpation of the traditional right of blood to rule, and transfers it to the Church, so that you don't get to be King unless the Church says you can be King, no matter who the fuck's son you are.)
A slightly more subtle gay meta post, but just as gay.
Except that he brought up the rules in the last sentence, how is this a meta post?
Jews and associated satanists
It was decided by people who want to enrage you so much that you'll fight tooth and nail to secure your cell in their new digital prison, content with your shackles because they allow you to enjoy the exact same things that you never needed their permission to believe in the first place.
Me, specifically me.
I can answer to this one specifically. Dom is such a colossal faggot that he's still on reddit. I deleted my account many years ago now. Dom just can't let go of that shithole, so he still has a very reddit tier attitude too.
I can't see a link or any text in the OP. It's been happening the past week or so on random posts.
Anyone else?