I think you've dove too deeply into analyzing whether or not merely responding to an action is an advantage to them. There's "the only wining move is not to play," and then there's "do nothing as your world is ransacked around you by barbarian hordes."
No. I stand by my view. Allowing your enemies to set the terms of your actions means that they are likely still in control of the situation. You talk about "rejection of propaganda" but I see no such thing. Sure, perhaps fewer people will buy the new Assassin's Creed, but people are still talking about what Ubisoft wanted people to talk about - a black samurai. And in doing so, you have given them far more power over you than they deserve.
My point was for people to own their own debates, own their own culture, talk about what they want to talk about. Is it samurai? Great, talk about samurai then, but there is no need to talk about a black samurai who never existed when there are a vast number of actual samurai to talk about.
No, because this sounds too much like "just let them win, leave them alone, why do you care so much?" I'll fight every bit of the way because inaction and apathy is death; death of my country, death of my culture, death of my future.
Still, you are "fighting" on their terms. The best way to fight death is to create life, like I said. Built your own content. Develop your own ideas. Care about your culture and future? Build communities you want embodying this culture you love, build your own future using your own values. Stop focusing on fighting "enemies" when they have designed the situation so that they also win by you fighting them.
If you feel compelled to overanalyse a meme
Meme or not, it's a useful analogy.
I'd imagine the more meaningful takeaway would be that the conditioning, triggers and events have a designer.
God provided us with free will, regardless of any human weaknesses we might have. How we use it is up to us.
Is this some kind of meta-bait? I'll nibble a bit.
I thought it was pretty obvious that I was calling many people here NPCs because of the completely predictable way they were responding to the black samurai being in Assasin's Creed (5+ posts at the top level in the last 24 hours or so). I suspect most people knew what I was doing and didn't like it (unsurprisingly). But, regardless, the real reason I posted it was to encourage people to think about what they are doing instead of responding instinctively based on simplistic emotional reasoning.
It's normal to reinforce reality when reality is challenged. When someone says something that is incorrect, it is completely understandable why someone would want to correct them. One may well call any reaction at all to be "NPC" at that point. The word loses its meaning.
No. An "NPC" reaction would be one that is based on simplistic or instinctive reasoning, instead of one based on actual thinking about the best way to respond to something. Responding to bait is a clear example of this. Sure there might be good reasons to respond to something, but my point is that propaganda is far more insidious than most people realize. Propaganda is often set up so that the propagandist wins either way - accept the propaganda as true, and they win. Try to prove the propaganda wrong, and they also win. The reason is both responses allow the propagandist to set the terms for what is being debated. I am trying to encourage people to think more about what they are doing, and how they are being lead and herded, instead of just reacting all the time.
One of the biggest powers of the media of all forms that is underappreciated is that they choose the topics that are being talked about. In doing so they still get to define the terms of the debate. Case in point - everyone here is talking about a black samurai. The game designers have succeeded in making plenty of people here start to talk about black samurais even though black samurais never existed. If a fictional black samurai is not something that people here are interested in, isn't it a bit strange that so many people here talking about it?
It's possible to outsmart propaganda, but it requires rational thinking and discipline. Such as training oneself not to be baited into responding instinctively to obvious propaganda.
How do you determine the "non-NPC" response to someone who is saying something false, and especially when it is verifiably false?
If someone can predict how a defined group of people are going to respond with a high degree of certainty then those people are acting like NPCs because they are responding instinctively, not intellectually. Of course, it's simply an analogy to make a point though, there is no definite NPC response vs non-NPC response.
In any case, you are still thinking inside the box in that the best thing to do is to respond in some way. Maybe the best thing to do is to ignore it?
I agree with your theory. Men and boys tease each other amongst friend groups as well. The reason they do this is exactly the same as your proposal about why they'd do it with the women and girls in their life - to help each other build a thicker skin. Being teased in a safe environment, and learning how to deal with it, means that they are able to deal with when teased or verbally attacked in an unsafe environment. It allows them to learn how to deal with negative emotions, like you'd pointed out.
Women and girls are much less likely to do this in their friendship groups. Instead, they are 'nice' to each other (even fake 'nice'). When they verbally attack each other they usually are doing it to actually attack each other, rather than to help the person being teased by strengthening them.
It is very likely that this male behavior is beneficial to women and girls as well, when men do this with the females who they are close to.
The loss of this dynamic is partly to do with feminist discourse that entirely misunderstands this aspect of male interpersonal communication. Feminists see men teasing each other as men "not having proper friendships" or "men treating their friends badly". They are unable to see that male teasing is actually a sign of a strong friendship, that men do it with each other to help each other. They also don't see that men use it carefully - like you've pointed out - men are perfectly capable of using their empathy of determining when they might have overdone it and pulling back, and most do so. (It is true that men tend to dislike other men that are unable to take any teasing and always over-react, but there are good reasons for that as well). This means that feminists discourse encourages men to stop doing this and instead be 'nice' to each other, to the detriment of both men and women.
I don't know anything about her or this particular situation, but I have no doubts you are right simply by looking at her picture. She is most likely the kind of woman that uses manipulation to her advantage, including underhanded tactics and selling her sexuality for attention.
For all the complaints about women being "emotional" or "shouldn't be allowed to vote" that are frequent here, all it takes is a pretty face saying "based" things and suddenly all that is forgotten - the "based babe" is now going to lead the fight against leftists or immigrants and be successful at it, rather than act like most other women. The number one problem is men thinking with their dicks, and even so-called "red-pilled" or "based" men are generally not much different. Their reason is not in control of their passions. It is the other way around.
Don't worry about the downvotes. Being willing to speak the truth as you see it after thinking about a topic (as opposed to a mindless usually emotional reaction) is a virtue. Internet points are meaningless.
It's not particularly shocking to me. Most people have an innate morality, their conscience, that tells them that genocide - the mass murder of innocent individuals - is fundamentally immoral. Those condoning genocide inevitably need to use propaganda to undermine this sense of morality, usually by dehumanizing those being murdered. But propaganda can only go so far. Most people are able to realize that Palestinians are actually people, and those Palestinians who are innocent do not deserve to be murdered, and so will naturally feel abhorrence at those who are murdering them. So 'noticing' is inevitable once the propaganda is no longer effective.
At a population level, the collapse of the power of pro-Israeli propaganda in Western countries is likely due to the rise of multiculturalism. For whatever problems multiculturalism may have, the reality is that the mention of the "Holocaust" and charges of antisemitism does little to dissuade non-white individuals, and especially does not dissuade Muslims. The rise of non-white people being able to criticise pro-Israeli power in Western countries inevitable leads to charges of antisemitism losing their power on white people as well. Some might call this "the cunning or reason", with pushing of multiculturalism to undermine Western countries actually backfiring on those doing the pushing. Evidence that God Himself, the Logos, ultimately being in control of human history.
I'm not going to engage with material from an account using a picture of a scantily clad woman on it, and I encourage all men to do the same. Regardless of the message, someone using a photo like that is using female sexuality to sell their ideas to men, which means they are trying to manipulate you. Men are not going to find any solutions if they keep letting their dicks do the talking.
No doubt there are many contributing components. I don't disagree with your comment, but I would put it another way - the priesthood reflects the population they are from, or in other words, we get the priests we deserve.
I still think the most important factor, at least the one the individual men can actually make a dent into, is that men as a whole are too enslaved by sin to lead as Christians. You just need to look at this forum to see multitudes of men defending their own enslavement by pornography, masturbation and fornication (sexual sins are probably to most easy to fall into, especially for men, which is why chastity is a universal virtue). At a first step, individual men need to choose not to sin for their own sake, i.e. their own personal salvation, and once they start doing so they can step into the role God intends - to lead their societies according to His law.
Christianity is heavily feminized, and has been for atleast a century. Likely two or more.
And the solution to this, from my point of view, is for men to rightfully reassert their positions within Christianity as the leaders. The start is for men to start going to church again and playing an active role. Men need to stop conceding ground to women and recapture what they have lost.
No, seriously. Historically, women have been seen as the spiritual center of the family, while the husband deals with earthly matters. So scripture and teachings on sunday are focused and interpreted to appeal to... women! Women also influence the purse strings of the family, encouraging more spending toward the church. Win win.
I think this may be true in recent times - probably due to the rise of feminism in the West and is knock-on effects - but in my view this is certainly not what God intended. Christianity is meant to be patriarchal because that is the natural order of things. It is men's role to lead. This could not be any more explicit than Ephesians 5:24:
As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands.
As Christians, men are meant to lead spiritually and they need to do so again. They can do so by getting themselves in order - turning away from sin and being faithful to the Gospel - and being role models and eventually leaders as they continue to develop spiritually and in their relationship with God in their local Christian communities. And spreading the Good News to other men to do the same.
Any good videos to jump start an interest in exploring what Christianity used to look like in that context?
You won't get this from videos. One way is to explore the writing of historical Christian intellectuals, such as Saint Augustine or Saint Thomas Aquinas. It can be quite heavy but that is part of the point - I would say engaging with Christianity using reason and our rational ability is a quintessentially masculine way of doing so. In contrast, the feminine takes complex concepts and tends to simplify these to caricatures often based on on emotional reasoning, such as "love of neighbor and love of enemy" as meaning "being nice to everyone so you don't upset them", which is certainly not what Christ meant.
Christians embrace Our Lord Jesus Christ as King and Savior, and as one Person of the Holy Trinity of God.
Today's Jews are defined by their rejection of Jesus Christ. (The Jews of the Old Testament that embraced Our Lord are no longer Jews, but Christians). It is my belief that by rejecting God, they no longer worship Him but someone else.
Forgiveness, of course, requires true repentance and penance, and righting the wrongs of sin. Your understanding of Christianity appears to be rather incomplete.
You have not sinned against me, so there is no need for me forgive you.
So you're completely helpless against a hostile subversive force undermining your church.
No. As a Christian, it is my role follow Christ to the best of my ability. One thing He requires of me is obedience, including obedience to the hierarchy of the Church. Yet this is not blind obedience. You edited out how I phrased my statement of obedience "I must be willing to accept that he knows better than me". The point is that if I am to dissent with the hierarchy of the Church, I must be very sure that this out of love for God, not my own selfishness or because I have been seduced by Satan. The starting point must always be that I am wrong, and the Church is right. After all, Jesus said:
And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. Matthew 16:18
In any case, the point here is rather moot, because apparently the charge against me is that I am foolish for choosing to obey the Church over some random atheists on the internet. If that makes me foolish in your eyes, then so be it. I'd rather be called foolish then be led astray.
No, I am not God's special chosen one. I am simply one of His humble servants. You are free to think what you want of me, just as you are free to follow Christ if you choose to do so.
Christians also insist that we forgive the most run-through whores and marry them in their 30s.
Indeed, Christians must be willing to forgive the sins of others, as God forgives our sins. But whether you want to marry is entirely up to you. Everyone has their own calling. I have said so before, on this very forum.
In fact, I'd say if you are searching for true meaning in your life, you will only find in the Christ. You will not find it in marrying or having children, despite anything other Christians may tell you.
How is this not just good advice despite who says it?
Because there are no simple solutions to complex problems.
Because even if sometimes, as a weak human, I may sometimes desire my enemies to be destroyed or harmed, that may not be God's will. In fact, it is probably not His will, as I know He desires all of us people to be brought into His light and be saved.
Because the successor to the chair of Saint Peter, who Christ placed in charge of His Church, has not deemed that this is the correct response to those who spread what I consider falsehoods, so out of obedience and respect, I must be willing to accept that he knows better than me.
As an atheist, I WANT Christianity to be a strong religion as truth be told,
As an atheist, your goals for Christianity differ from the goals of Christians and the goals of Christ Himself. As your comment implies, you see Christianity only as a political tool to achieve your political aims. You see it as a way to enforce your desired moral outcomes, not God's moral outcomes. That is not Christianity.
In contrast, a Christian sees his religion as Truth. Christ is the Son of God. He is Lord and King. We obey Christ becomes it is our duty to so. He has tasked us with loving God and loving our neighbours as well as our enemies. Fundamentally, a Christian's main motivation is to achieve God's will, not the will of humans. Therein is the clear distinction between your goals and my goals.
In some cases, I may be able to work you to achieve particular aims. But I will not apologize for calling out your attempt to tell me how I should be acting as a Christian. If I need guidance, I will turn to prayer and the Holy Spirit, not a random atheist on the internet.
You do, of course, have the free will to become accept Christ in your life as King and Saviour and become Christian. It is my hope that you do so.
Good, that should be the message, now excommunicate anyone off message or tell them they aren't Christians.
If I recall correctly, you are an atheist, not a Christian. Christians don't want or need atheists telling them how to be Christians any more than they want or need Jews telling them how to be Christians.
So of course, this article doesn't help define "dignity," and it isn't clear how significant it is, if really at all.
No, but the full declaration does. It defines several forms of dignity.
The full declaration is here.
Yet, your comment above indicates you are relying on a report by a journalist to tell you what the declaration says and "how significant it is". The declaration isn't that long, so perhaps it's worth reading rather than relying on a journalist?
Evolutionary psychology is the generally the domain of people who know nothing about evolution beyond a high school level (e.g. psychologists). It doesn't incorporate modern ideas about evolution from the biological sciences - what about genetic drift? Gene flow? Multi-level selection? Non-genetic inheritance? Basically, it involves individuals coming up with 'fun' sounding rationalizations for their pet theories based on an unfalsifiable appeal to 'natural selection' and 'fitness'. These theories are not even based on attempts to perform mathematical modelling of evolutionary trajectories, which is what evolutionary biologists would do (even if these simplistic models are no doubt flawed themselves).
Evolution, especially that of human behavior, is far more complicated that these evolutionary psychology 'theories' would have it, and in my opinion beyond the ability of any human to properly comprehend due to its extreme complexity involving so many variables, most of which could never even be measured properly. It is the domain of God.
There are other, far better, uses of our rational minds than arguments based on 'evolutionary psychology'.
ps. 'Briffault's Law' is also flawed when applied to humans. Even a casual observer of humans would observe that throughout history, unlike animals such as birds, it is the human females, not human males that seek to attract male attention by improving their appearance using makeup and clothes, seductive dancing etc. This clearly indicates females are competing amongst themselves to be chosen by their preferred males. These males are determining whether and with what females to associate with. To put it another way, how is the 80/20 rule and ideas surrounding 'Chad' consistent with Briffault's Law? Chad, a male, is obviously choosing which females to associate with. None of this means that males don't also have to compete amongst themselves to associate with their preferred females, but simply that your simplistic "Briffault's Law" does not apply to humans.
In my opinion, what she is observing is one of God's built-in mechanisms for ensuring His creation abides by His natural order. Men and women are not identical. Feminism, i.e. allowing women to control the state of the society, does not work as this is not the role of women. Feminism inevitable leads to the collapse of that society. A patriarchal society, where men control the state of the society, which is men's role, will take its place.
From a practical point of view, this is way societies should align themselves with His natural order. In doing so, they can be successful and thrive. Fail to do so, and they run a real risk of butting against the mechanisms He has but in place to ensure they stay as intended.
is it possible to be modern and fertile? So far, the answer appears to be ‘no’.
She is also wrong as she is using 'modern' as if it is absolute term instead of relative. Taking 'modern' to mean "characteristic of the present age", then every generation is 'modern' compared to past generations, and so yes, there were in fact modern and fertile societies.
What she really means is:
is it possible to be feminist and fertile. So far, the answer appears to be ‘no’.
But stating it that way would be too hard-hitting for her and her feminist audience.
Unless you are an incel genius like Isaac Newton or Nikolai Tesla then producing those children and doing your best to impart your values on to them, in spite of everything arrayed against you, is your "greater purpose".
No. For a Christian, the "greater purpose" is spreading the Good News of our Lord and King Jesus Christ to all people. This may involve having children, but everyone has their own calling. Your statement is steeped in materialism, where "scientific" advancement in a material sense, as exhibited by Newton or Tesla, or increasing the number of people in the world by having children, is the only "purpose" in life. This would have it that the saints throughout the ages who died or were martyred as virgins to spread Christianity to all the corners of the world were not achieving a "greater purpose", and were less important than Newton or Tesla.
In secular Western societies, for many individuals, their calling may be to re-evangelize to their brothers and sisters who are in apostasy or never truly exposed to the Word. This is a greater purpose, and all Christians are called to do so, even if they are single and do not feel the calling to have children.
For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.” (Matthew 19:12)
That and free hard-core porn on demand. Imagine the twisted perception of women and sex that comes from that cocktail.
Feminism and pornography (or at least sexual liberalisation) go hand-in-hand. Female power is largely derived from the ability to manipulate men using female sexuality.
While it's true that pornography corrupts the minds of boys and men, in my view, the biggest issue of this is that it enslaves boys and men to their sexual passions, making them good servants of "sexual-liberated" girls and women, who can use their sexualities to manipulate boys and men to achieve their own aims.
Another example of this is the prevalent attitude in Western societies that the amount of pre-marital sex a man has is an indicator of his "value". In other words, a male who is a successful fornicator is a "high-quality" man. How can this be? This only makes sense in a perverted feminist world where the most "useful" men are those that women can have sexual power over.
For boys and men to rise above feminism and become anti-feminist, they do need to be chaste and stop using pornography and fornicating. They need to take control of their lives so they can no longer be manipulated by shitty women using sex to control them.
(Another issue is that the rise of feminism has meant that male-female relationships have been badly corrupted, which means that many men and boys who want to do the right thing and contain their sexual passions within a monogamous relationship, as God intended, are unable to do so without ending up in bad relationships. Luckily, the part of solution to this is again male chastity - as this men to filter prospective partners better prior to entering into a relationship that could result in children, leaving him tied to her for life, whether or not she will be a good wife or mother. In other words, chastity better equips men to say "no" to a bad deal).
For example, one could ignore the black samurai and talk about actual samurai. Build your own ideas and have your own debates. Not devote your focus on the enemies content and having the debates that your enemies want you to have.