Bongo_Stryker

@Bongo_Stryker@lemmy.ca

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. For a complete list of posts, browse on the original instance.

Bongo_Stryker ,

I don't 100% know if this is what mockingmoniker is getting at, but I want to give a word of possible explanation from my own perspective: Christians make a distinction between "sin" and "sinner" - or are at least supposed to. It's my understanding from being sent to Christian school that people are decieved or led astray or get tempted or whatever, but it's the actions that are "sinful" or "evil" or "demonic," not the persons. This is the meaning of "hate the sin but love the sinner" - which is not actually in the bible btw. There are some verses that address this, for example Romans 5:8 or Ezekiel 33:11 in which God says he isn't happy about the death of wicked people but would rather they turn from their ways and live. Look up that one- it literally says "turn back from your evil ways, for why do you die, Oh house of Israel?" Still relevant. But I'm going off topic.

Of course, Christians are people too, and are generally pretty poor at following their own code of conduct. Also there are plenty of wolves in sheep's clothing that use theological language for their own worldly goals, and it can be difficult to know which is which. Generally people in worldly positions of power that use theological language are the latter.

Bongo_Stryker ,

Great! The bankers are doing well.
However, people with jobs are still showing up at community kitchens. The community kitchens that got their funding cut.

Bongo_Stryker ,

You are wrong. Olives are great.

Bongo_Stryker , (edited )

What's happening here is a derailment of any discussion about sensible border policy, and a distraction from the failure of the border wall plan that a certain republican repeatedly claimed Mexico would pay for (that Mexico never actually paid for), by means of attacking ideological opponents with specious accusations.

The pattern of manipulative behavior used by abusive people has an acronym: DARVO: deny, attack, reverse victim and offender. So it goes like this: republicans aren't racist, democrats are the real racists. Republicans were just trying to protect America from a lot of bad hombres but dems are welcoming in illegals to exploit them for cheap labor and votes.

I see loud and accusatory distractions from the fact that the $15 billion border wall is regularly defeated by $5 ladders. I see rhetorical diversions around the fact that republicans regularly fly pro-slavery insurrectionist confederate battle flags. I see a strange fascination with the racist democrats of the 1800's, meanwhile in 2024 senator Tuberville(R) claims white nationalists are not racists and Rep Crane(R) refers to African Americans as "colored people" during an anti-woke tirade.

And in the accusation about democrats wanting illegals for cheap labor, "like slaves"as is suggested, never will there ever be any acknowledgement of the decades long republican effort of a race-to-the-bottom erosion of workers rights and devaluation of labor in this country.

Are the democrats so great? No, they are very terrible. The other side is also bad, and is gas-lighteningly evasive and downright dishonest about the part they had to play in creating the current situation.

Bongo_Stryker ,

A more effective strategy would be to address those issues, especially because the u.s. greatly contributed to destabilizing South and Central America.

Amen to that.

Bongo_Stryker ,

I was just talking to a Canadian teen about this recently. She talked about colonialism, and then decolonization, and the next step is reconciliation. I said "I don't think reconciliation is going to happen, the way things are going." She didn't hesitate before she said "There's growth. Everybody my age is learning about this in school and we can see what's happening now. I think reconciliation can happen."

She gave me a feeling of hope. I hope she's right.

Bongo_Stryker ,

Well I like that he defines nationalism so we can know what the heck he's talking about. The idea that different nations should have their own autonomy and sovereignty and ways of doing things sounds pretty reasonable to me. It's good that different nations have their own things going on. Sure.

Unfortunately, letting other nations do their own thing is not what conservatives have been doing. You don't have to cast your eye back very far into the history of america to see it. Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2, all conservative presidents whose foreign policies were definately not about respecting other nations doing their own thing. He did directly address Bush Sr. And his "new world order" speech and said "well, they called him conservative," and we are to understand that he wasn't really a conservative. But I don't see how his idea of "nationalism" goes along with conservative thinking in the context of American history.

It's interesting how he talks about a one world government as if it's this terrible threat that's about to happen at any moment. It used to be communism that was the big threat conservatives worried about, now it's the one world government. I don't feel too worried about that happening.

I didn't watch the whole thing, I got about 45 minutes, just to the point where a he's talking about neo-marxists and his idea of what they are about. He puts it in simple terms - they say there's always a powerful group exploiting the less powerful group. That happened throughout the history of the USA. Is there a time when that wasn't the case? It's still happening now. I plan to finish the vid, but I wanted to put down my thoughts before I got distracted with other things.

Bongo_Stryker , (edited )

Ok I'm at 47 minutes and he's talking about the problem of multiculturalism and diversity. He stars off saying it's good to have "different strands" but it's important for there to be a dominant group that can be "generous and capable of allowing other things to flourish,... That's the best world"

But then he contrasts that with: " but if you say it's illegatimate to think in terms of a unified national narrative..."

So this is very conservative red pill lobster thinking. There has to be a dominant group that holds everything together, and if you suggest sectarian discrimination is a problem, or that black lives matter, or that women deserve human rights for example, then you are trying to tear apart the fabric of society and destroy all unity. He talks about " National mutual loyalty" and I am thinking buddy, when people are extracting weath from this nation and consolidating it in their private coffers, when the cops can kill minority people with impunity, when so much of rural America is living below the poverty line and don't have health care, where the heck is the mutual loyalty?

I think this video has little to nothing to do with the USA. The United States government has broken every treaty ever made with native American nations, where is the mutual loyalty?

Predatory lending aimed at racially segregated minority neighborhoods led to mass foreclosures that fueled the U.S. housing but the banks and airlines get bailed out at the drop of a hat. Is that the kind of mutual loyalty he is talking about?

But he goes on to drop this gem about the multiculturalists: "they say I'll describe 50 percent of the picture, and I'll pretend that's the whole." He says this after describing 50 percent of the picture, and pretending that's the whole. The truth has to be somewhere between these two points.

There is about 20 minutes left in the video and I don't think I'll watch it, unless someone thinks there is a compelling reason to do so. I feel this guy is another academic that can say nice sounding things that perhaps don't really apply to the real world I'm living in.

Bongo_Stryker ,

Why is big government sticking its nose into parents decisions about their children's medical care?

Bongo_Stryker ,

It's a photon torpedo for anyone who says something negative about Captain Kirk. He will always be my Captain.

3 reasons why I love Captain Kirk:

  1. Won most fistfights. Especially when his shirt got ripped.

  2. A real leader. Captain Kirk would never hide in a bunker from anything, he would beam into any situation, and the crew would fillow him. Captain Kirk never backed down from a challenge, no matter how many red shirt guys had to die.

  3. Captain Kirk knew how to handle the ladies. Black, white, brown or green, Captain Kirk could make out with all of them.

Bongo_Stryker , (edited )

mine don't include a lack of disregard for my life

I'm having trouble parsing this.

Bongo_Stryker ,

"It’s of no operational or law enforcement benefit to try to block federal authorities from being able to do their job," a senior official said., adding that the tactic has no impact on the migrant flow, and now that when Texas is done receiving them they still are turned over at other locations – therefore adding extra steps to the process.

So it's pretty much performative.
Interesting that it's an "senior official" that said that, who maybe wanted to remain unnamed perhaps to avoid an avalanche of death threats, bomb threats, and other vitriolic hate.

Bongo_Stryker ,

The army is very conservative when it comes to white troops. Sadly, this will impact our ability to go to war since white troops make up the combat arms and special forces

Here is an interesting admission that conservatism favors white people over others for some things, despite wintermule's pathological and repeated assertions that the progressives are the racist ones.

Also of note is the use of the word "sadly", which would seem to indicate the knowledge that conservatism is not best possible guiding philosophy for all situations.

Bongo_Stryker , (edited )

Ok sorry, I must have misunderstood.
All I know is, despite my ASVAB I didn't actually get a choice of MOS.

Bongo_Stryker ,

Hmm yes very interesting. I'd like to read that. It sounds almost as if you could make some careful inferences about US society as a whole based on observations of the military.

Bongo_Stryker ,

Intriguing stuff. I have not finished reading the whole thing but I feel like there could be some cultural, social and socioeconomic factors that are just kinda glossed over here. Seems like a simple question about a subject that I think is more complex than it initially appears.

Bongo_Stryker ,

To be fair, it is pretty much meaningless, but you are not supposed to say that out loud.

Bongo_Stryker ,

"And therefore, all friends and people, pluck down your images; I say, pluck them out of your houses, walls, and signs, or other places, that none of you be found imitators of his Creator, whom you should serve and worship; and not observe the idle lazy mind, that would go invent and make things like a Creator and Maker. . . ."

—George Fox, ca. 1670

Quakers are not big on statues. I bet old William would be ok with it.

Bongo_Stryker ,

That was a good read. Well written and informative, but now I am left with so many questions.

That map was eye-opening. It made me wonder why republican controlled areas are doing so poorly. I understand the blame is somehow put on those dang ole democrats, but this doesn't make sense to me. In all the towns with republican mayors and republican council members, in republican counties in states with republican governors and republican legislatures, with republican controlled congress for much of our recent history, why are so many republican citizens unable to prosper?
We have had a string of republican presidents, among which I count Clinton, who was policy-wise, basically a moderate republican.
So why are republican areas of the country not doing well? It's mystifying.

Could it possibly be because of...republican policy?

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • test
  • worldmews
  • mews
  • All magazines
    •