Until we remove religion we won't advance as a civilization.
That'll go about as well as the idea that until we remove greed we won't advance as a civilization. It's human nature for some portion of the population to be more motivated by belief than empiricism, just like it's human nature for some people to be more motivated by greed than empathy or loyalty. And I really mean nature, these are not learned behaviours, that's why religions have sprung up independently across the entire globe all through history.
So by "remove religion" you have to understand that will require a multi generational global eugenics effort to fundamentally change human nature. Which is ambitious to the point of absurdity. Not to mention the potentially devastating side effects, could we ever be inventive again if we breed out the tendency to believe in things we cannot see? Would that cripple the intelligence that let humans take over the world?
You'd be far more successful accepting that part of the human condition and building a society that can withstand and mitigate things like religion or greed. Better yet, stick a saddle and harness on them and maybe even get some net good out of them.
To be fair Shinto barely is a religion, at most it's the preserved corpse of one.
No central leadership, no modern progressive reinterpretive movements, no weird Shintoist zealots evangelizing. Just a bunch of harmless superstitions and festivals that they can use as a nice cultural touchstone and a shared national identity.
You mean OP of this post? Bridge has already been mentioned even here months ago, and that was someone linking a long ass Kirsche video back then too.
beherit
LMAO, it's so perfect for them
The one where they delegate intelligence gathering and spying on their own citizens to each other to avoid having to worry about respecting their own citizens rights on a legal technicality. And where intelligence agents in one country will fabricate ludicrous lies about political candidates in the other country that have annoyed the deep state. That one seems pretty shady and weirdly cohesive in their goals.
You should also tell them that a more retarded reading pace might help them not hastily misunderstand anything you're telling them.
If 45-60 is middle aged then you're presuming a life expectancy of >100 years.
Middle aged is realistically more like 35-50. Maybe trending even younger as life expectancies are still falling. It also tracks pretty well to where your performance plateau's and starts to fall again for even mental tasks.
50 is officially the start of "old" as far as I am concerned. It's when you even average members of society start being way less productive.
There is literally nothing stopping the stupid blue kid from walking next to the red kid. And somehow being equal without a ladder is inequality but equal with ladders is equality.
Even their memes demonstrate why they fail to achieve anything on their own and can only take things from others.
Technically they're claiming they never actually had that many shorts to win big on. They're claiming they just accidentally reported in their public record keeping that they had taken out 10,000x more than they actually had.
Yeah, this is some CSI "enhance" bullshit, you can't even make out the ladder on the side at this blurry ass resolution, you might as well be seeing jesus in your toast looking for definitive details in that mess.
Another user has already laid the groundwork here.
Violence does have a place in civilized society*. We were not nice to King George's Army: we shot them.
*I'll grant here that the average twat doesn't have the brains to determine when to cross this line, so it should usually be discourage. It should never be take off the table entirely.
Currently I'm giving some users here the courtesy of treating them as better than the average midwit and telling people who espouse "violence is never the answer" why that is delusional and will lead to the downfall of a fair and just society. The most principled in society must actually be willing to be the most violent else you'll allow ever more unprincipled violence, because only those with firm principles will restrict that violence to where it is necessary rather than self serving or convenient.
I declare no contest to that challenge.
They are actually currently trying to ban crossbows, yes.
I mean most work sucks.
Retail's not as cushy as a being a useless HR drone wasting space in an office, or doing remote work with low performance targets.
But it's not nearly as hard as factory work, or long overnight shifts, or any of the kinds of jobs where you semi-regularly come home with small chemical burns, singed eyebrows or sprained joints.
Neither of those grifting spoiled brats have done retail in their lives. They're also incredibly gullible so they listen to their fellow women saying "retail is hell on earth!" with rapt credulousnes
A couple of times he did, his hitrate was still way higher though.
But to be fair to derpjaw the decranialated, Kyle's targets were much closer -because they were actual threats.
Sounds like tomayto/tomahto to me. Some quiet voice inside them wonders if maybe they deserve what they mete out, and it scares them.
Dunno who's behind them so to speak, but they're relatively recent and rapidly growing. Holdings were valued at $121mil at the start of 2020. Now valued at $928mil.
Yeah I know he might be a lost cause, s'why I replied to you.
I just wanted to expand on the proper response to "tribalism is bad m'kay" to someone who would listen and help spread the message.
That being that tribalism is to politics what guns are to self defence. It's a morally agnostic power multiplier, and if the other guy brings his you better be fucking sure you brought yours.
That kind of tribalism is a rabbit-hole that never turns out well.
Yeah, this bullshit is straight up lies or ignorance. That kind of tribalism is the foundation of every stable, peaceful society in human history. I challenge anyone to name just one society that made no differentiation between society members and outsiders that lasted even a single generation. They don't exist because they were all conquered or wiped out by people who did.
Sure some tribal societies ended badly, but that's because everything has to end some way eventually and some inevitably won't be great, it's not inherently part of tribalism. Patriotism is tribalism on a grand scale, and the US used to practice it to a large degree. That didn't lead to the US becoming genocidal maniacs did it? No, they just quietly gave up patriotism without a single shot fired (much to the general detriment of the people now helpless to outside exploitation by people who do still practice tribal solidarity). Tribalism is a tool for better leveraging people's power and saying it's inherently evil is just as dumb as saying guns are inherently evil.
OP started by describing how that wartime friend/enemy mindset more accurately describes the extreme lefty behaviour we've seen lately than any kind of disagreement between countrymen. It's not technically a watertight thesis yet, but it's not unreasonable.
And then OP tried to use their wartime experience to explain how that level of commitment to force trumps everything but an equal commitment to force. Violence is the fundamental unit of human negotiation, because once you're physically incapacitated you have no say in what comes next, everything else above that is just obfuscation of that fact by mutual agreement, typically for overall net benefit to all parties.
Once that mutual agreement is broken by one party seeking material gain, then the other party needs to be willing and able to return violence in equal or greater measure so that sitting back down at the negotiating table becomes the materially rational choice. And the more you let them hurt you before you find the will to retaliate, the less able you are of actually forcing them to stop. There will always be people with no natural inclination towards peaceful coexistence unless it materially benefits them, those who most desire a peaceful existence must understand the necessity of demonstrating a communal ability to enact such effective violence that peace becomes a matter of self-interest even for those for whom it's not a matter of principle.
Now really the reluctance to commit violence is more of a spectrum than a binary, so even for the more violence inclined the will needed for the first punch is way more than the next hundred. So if they've already thrown the first punch you'd be a fool trying to negotiate them out of punching you again without providing some form of physical deterrent, and since any single punch can end you, you'd also be a fool to stop and offer them a return punch every time, you rain down retribution without reprieve until they surrender or are incapacitated. On a group level, if anyone cheers one of their own group throwing the first punch at you, then they've also already crossed that emotional Rubicon, so you can likewise consider them unable to be stopped by anything but an equal or greater threat of violence towards their group, waiting for each of them to strike first is begging to be crippled before you can fight back.
To be fair, most of those oblivious, politically divested real world people eventually just tend to do what they're told by whichever small group is willing to play the game of political king of the hill and is currently winning.
They might not want people dead themselves, but if the media propaganda machine tells them it's necessary often enough, the vast majority won't do anything to stop it and a disturbing number will even help in small logistical ways whilst claiming they still don't like it.
My point was if you refuse to negotiate over or adapt to not having things work 100% your ideal way, then in the real world you're choosing to forfeit entirely. And choosing to forfeit but complain loudly about it is just choosing to get nothing with extra steps.
Also, you misrepresented OP slightly, he compared it to enemy forces initiating fire at you, not returning fire. Neither instance is defensive.
Even if they intend to steal, every vote they have to fraudulently match is resources they have to spend, paid patsies are cheap but they aren't free y'know.
Even if you don't expect to win a battle, at least make them pay as dearly as you can