Felix's anger about the anti-abortion stance is so spot-on and refreshing. Not the first time I've heard that kind of response, but still really nice to hear such an honest reaction.
One of the things that's led me to be firmly irreligious and secular is this existential realization that I have no idea why I'm here. Everyone stumbles upon this at some point and if they don't it's usually because they've avoided it by clinging onto some kind of hierarchal belief system. It's also why I'm a socialist by default - we have the means as a society to provide basic needs to everyone born into this world and it's morally wrong to oppose that or force conditions and demands on people for merely existing. That's also why the right-wingers harp on "family values" so much - they don't naively believe in that so much as they oppose their lost of control over their children or wives. I find Catholic Workers interesting because the sincere ones are more preoccupied with helping others in society and their mission statement reflects that. But it's ultimately a needless structuring of a religion around what is the same ethos of secular leftist goals. The incredible thing about something like anti-abortion / "pro-life" movement is only a small percentage of that movement is composed of people who are also sincerely antiwar pacifists and advocates of social welfare. Everyone else who claims to be pro-life is, despite their claims otherwise, supports some form of religious fascism. The counter to this is is that abortion as a legal right is not a major issue to most liberal and progressive mainline Christians and Jews. It's a safe assumption that anyone who claims communism or leftism is wrong because it's anti-religious isn't really concerned about religious or spiritual freedom on an individual level but actually one who actually fears the dismantling of religious hierarchies and theocratic governing.
That sounds like a rationalisation of unknowing. Not knowing why you are here is not the same as knowing that there is no reason you are here. Going from one to the other is jumping to a conclusion, using your unknowing - lack of data - as if it's a datum. I find the apologetics concerning the origin of the universe and the origin of life completely intellectually satisfying and convincing, and I've never heard an argument for atheism that was remotely as convincing or at all attractive. That's just me, think for yourself at all costs, but if you haven't read or heard the arguments for creation, fine tuning, the anthropic principle, the historicity of the biblical texts and such, you're lacking information. Of course proof is impossible, either way. That's not the point. The question is what's a reasonable position to take based on the arguments from circumstantial evidence. The other thing is to avoid working from strawmen about either claim. In my experience Atheists habitually misunderstand and misrepresent the idea of God actual monotheists actually believe in, and strawman monotheists themselves for that matter. Denouncing and ripping apart something we don't believe in gets nobody anywhere.
@@patrickholt2270That's odd, I've heard arguments falling under every category that you mentioned and every single one has been demonstrably fallacious, unsound, or otherwise wholly unable to demonstrate any of the foundational beliefs/claims to Christianity
@@patrickholt2270 The universe is fine tuned to be entirely inhospitable to life as we know it almost everywhere except this single planet. I think you'd have a leg to stand on if the bible depicted a god that loved hypoxia and the vacuum of space and was constantly punishing sinners by boiling the blood out of every one of their orifices. "Fine-tuning" except almost none of it is fine-tuned. "Fine-tuning", but by a completely inept agent, that gave a single planet to millions species that want to consume and multiply endlessly. Finely tuning every single pothole on my street so each puddle fits perfectly inside of its custom pothole. What's the point of these apologetic arguments if they only impress people who already agree with them? How are you so impressed with these weak arguments?
I know this is really old, but something the chapo boys might have missed is that out of the 14 points the two specific enough to be truly meaningful were the marriage one and the abortion one. I don't know what became of these guys, but if they released this manifesto today I really wouldn't trust their commitment to the rest of it.
Didn't they follow up with a guest who help write this? I remember it went off the rails and Amber laid into him on abortion, to which he replied by praying for her. It was nuts.
@dangerousd1312 Matthew Walther interview I believe. I don't think it has an official number, it was a "forbidden" episode that had a CZcams upload years ago. No idea what that guy is up to these days but he sounded like a shambling alcoholic in the interview.
The Tradinista position on contraception, divorce, abortion, etc. is genuinely completely indefensible. But, despite that, I do have to give them a degree of credit for open and explicit opposition to homophobia and transphobia. That does come as a bit of a surprise from traditionalist Catholics (even left-wing ones). Though, given the fact that they also explicitly claim to be against misogyny and still can’t hold even basic positions on women’s rights, I’m not sure how true and robust this alleged support of gay and trans people might actually be.
The second part is exactly right. If they claim to oppose homophobia then turn around an immediately claim that marriage is an holy institution designed around procreation it definitely sets off alarms.
Hasan lead me here and once again im introduced to more daily listens. this is awesome, found so many dope podcasts, people and creator whatevers, idk dude, a non gay thank you is not going to be proportionate anymore. but i probably wont meet him so carrying this heavy debt is probably stupid. guilt prone? guiltyyy
15:12 this is a great point about conservatism in general honestly it's like, we already tried it your way and it clearly didn't work, what makes you think it's gonna be different this time
The things that "don't work" about conservatism are features, not bugs. It's very good at what it's meant to do, the problem is that what it's meant to do is horrific.
Not founder and Ideological Leader of the Center for Political Innovation Caleb Maupin? Shame. I have no respect for Ben Norton. The Grayzone are the truth.
The problem is that ideas like the seperation of church and state are simultaneously bourgeois ideology, and a religious doctrine, in that every faith has stances about the proper relationship between the faith and society, coming under the theological heading of ecclesiology, and the idea that the proper relationship between faith and politics is nil, is the ecclesiology, the religious doctrine, of only antheism, ba'haism and the most cultish forms of congregationalism. That's where the founding fathers got it from, from the predominance of congregationalist and anabaptist churches in the 13 colonies. The Puritans were Calvinists and had an opposite belief, which was that the self-governing congregations should also govern their towns and communities, that the two things should be the same thing, because the Calivinist and Lutheran conception was to create a new Christian uniformity to replace Catholicism as the effectively compulsory official state religions of the world, despite their emphasis on free willed acceptance of faith as the means of grace, not sacraments. It was the congregationalists coming out of the Independency faction in the New Model Army and the Anabaptists, as well as Mennonites, Hutterites and Moravians who instead asked for religious toleration and to be left alone by the state, because they were on the recieving end of persecution by all the established churches, whether Catholic or Protestant, and promoted that as their politics because it was their ecclesiology. So secularism is a fraud because it's actually a specific ecclesiology of specific minority faiths (including atheism because its claims are unprovable and cannot be believed in except by faith). And as bourgeois ideology it's necessarily reactionary and anti-revolutionary in the fullest sense. The alienations caused by commodity fetishism and the regimes of property relations and class domination and exploitation include alienation of Man from God and of Man from spirituality which comes under species-self and species-being; alienation of humanity and of persons from their best selves and real potential. Religion is a false category as a compartmentalisation of life and people's thought and behaviour. It's a product of the bourgeois revolution designed to abstract the moral and spiritual from business and political decisionmaking to enable, normalise and naturalise ruthlessness and exploitation of man by man and the despoiling of nature. Having said that I'm not a Catholic, and partly for the reasons you mention. I don't buy Papal Infallibility the same way I don't buy Democratic Centralism and its historical outcome in the form of one party states, and that degree of hierarchy culminating in a single figure (equally in the outcome of demoratic centralism as Rosa Luzemburg foresaw). I believe in a broader doctrinal toleration than is permitted within the RC church, or the Reformed churches. Sectarianism does no-one any good. I like the Anglican breadth of tolerance the way I like Rosa Luxemburg's broad tolerance of discussion and dissent within the working class movement as the necessity for building real whole-class organisation and the working class as a party. I think the manifesto points are wrong about laws and the state, and to the extent that that's coming straight out of the Catholic Catechism if they are, that's inaccurate on those points too. The law and the state do not in reality exist to coach the people in morality. Laws serve the interests of the wealth owning classes and as such enforce wickedness, and wickedness is written into law as scripture says. It's part of Conservative political ideology that the laws enforce and teach morality, and they use that as the pretext for an absolute, in principle authoritarianism which says that all resistance to the state and the hierachies of authority in society, including business ownership and the treatment of workers by employers, is always wrong and should be punished, and for treating tax and welfare policies as means to punish the poor for being poor on the presumption that people are poor through personal moral failings. It may be the case that the state and the laws should serve to enforce and teach morality, but in fact they don't, and that's why Jesus raised the banner of the kingdom of God on earth which the status quo was not and is not. It is why that original revolutionary goal was required and still is, and the mere existence of the church, all the churches, the Chuch Militant and otherwise, has not erased the false kingdoms, the principalities and powers, from the world to create the society in which the Sermon on the Mount becomes the temporal socio-economic and socio-political reality. So it's not just a false statement about the present ordering of the world, it's also false eschatology, because it implies that in terms of the state and laws the kingdom of God is already triumphant when it is not, which requires the proletarian world revolution inter alia. So there's confusion about cosmology and eschatology there. I've always felt that the anathematisation of abortion is a bolt-on to faith, strictly optional and not grounded in scripture It's incredibly far from central in Biblical teachings, in fact it's another one of those things Jesus never mentioned once, although abortion did exist in the ancient world. As a political cause it's very recent, only beginning to be made a fuss about in the 20th century, as a means to move believers to the right especially in US politics, coming from outside the churches and directed at the churches to get them to move more towards anti-communism and anti-modernism, not coming from inside the churches to change conservative politics. The Biblical and theolgical arguments fom first principles in favour of compassion for mothers and preferencing the lives of mothers over foetuses are much stronger in my opinion. Among other things, the idea that human life begins at conception is a Chrstina doctrine is contradicted by the rite of baptism in every church, otherwise baptism would not be delayed until after birth. If the fertilised ovum already has a soul, then that soul is in danger within the womb and ought to be saved immediately by the sacrament of initiation in case it dies before birth, as many always have. The fact that the church only administers baptism after birth demonstrates that the Christian doctrine is actually that human life begins at birth, and it is only from birth onwards that we have human rights and Christians are commanded to fight to deliver blessing according to need.
Actually a fetus feels pain, so Christians are obliged to outlaw abortion. Atheism is a statement based on probability, like the laws of physics. A statement or political movement can be imperfect and still be far superior to the alternative.
I definitely resonate with your critique of secularism, in that by restricting religious morality to the personal sphere the bourgeois class has effectively removed even the pretense of morality from law enforcement. It definitely feels like a lot of right wingers who profess the Christian faith are more interested in broadcasting their “morality” in terms of issues like marraige, sex, etc. yet have no problem preserving and justifying the exploitation of the proletariat by the capitalist class.
We humans need to be more honest with ourselves about what we do and do not know. If you claim deity A exists, then you need to substantiate your claim. If you can't substantiate your claim, then others should dismiss and not respect your claim.
Being a popular cultural produce, Chapo Trap House naturally invites itself to blanket characterizations by those skeptical of its cast and their influence, so it’s been rather disappointing to see familiar faces like Jude Doyle, Xeni Jardin and Gwen Snyder trivialize this as yet another entry in their personally-held grievances against the podcast and its neighboring ecosystem of broadcast leftist media. Even when the concerns of a grooming victim should take center stage, those eager to ascribe an entire class of creators a similitude of behavior based on vague ideological coherence are being naive at best, perhaps even delusional at the very worst. Treating this as a phenomenon unique to Chapo or its adjacent entities very much ignores the long history of abuse that some content creators have indulged under the spell of ever-corrupting power and influence. Spoken plainly, competitors of Chapo aren’t any less vulnerable to doing the same-if they have media to sell, are a notable social media presence, and they interact with their fans on an even semi-frequent basis…they’re just as susceptible to doing what they accuse Chapo of being uniquely capable of. It’s important to properly contextualize this story amidst what has been a tumultuous year for content creators previously thought to be beyond reproach, with internet culture coverage proving itself ever-so-crucial as those traditionally held to tepid standards finally have an impetus not to succumb to their worst instincts. In that sense, it’s not really useful to classify this as a pathos unique to the leftist podcasting sphere as much as it is a byproduct of our reticence to engage with the thorny proposition of celebrity when it is sprung and powered by a medium of mass communication-it’s not until very recently that literature abording that very topic became more readily available for both fans and creators to educate and inoculate themselves against the faint, but very real possibility of an inappropriate interaction taking place. The above analysis isn’t meant to take away from Jennifer’s plight-her case is barely an aberration in this space. It serves more so as a reminder that even those with a principled moral and political stance against predation can indulge it-neither conservatives, nor those to Chapo’s right on the left are immune if only for having a tame sense of humor. It’s possible to sound the most deranged on a podcast and still maintain an orderly profile in private, and the opposite is just as plausible-to intuit Virgil or any of his former colleagues a problematic character based solely on their public demeanor does victims of grooming and sexual assault a major disservice by feeding into often deceiving and erroneous harmful stereotypes. Where to go from here then? It remains to be seen whether the Chapo crew will see fit to address these allegations - considering that Virgil hasn’t been a part of their roster for quite a while - but the lessons learned are no less valuable. Creators should take conscious stock of their every interaction with fans, perhaps with the serious consideration of limiting discussions to the content made-it also goes without saying that fans should familiarize themselves with the literature of parasocial relationships if they ever wish to not supercharge creators’ collective ego such that they think themselves to be beyond accountability when reprimand is due. The issue is a complex one to be sure, and it is made no less easy by lawmakers’ seeming disinterest to treat the internet with the seriousness it deserves, but there’s plenty all parties can do to mitigate further damage done in the future.
Chapo constantly evolving... it is now Pod Save America combined with Ned Flanders wife who shrieks "won't someone think of the children." Keep going guys, you are too talented to not find an audience. 3000 views and counting!
Being a popular cultural produce, Chapo Trap House naturally invites itself to blanket characterizations by those skeptical of its cast and their influence, so it’s been rather disappointing to see familiar faces like Jude Doyle, Xeni Jardin and Gwen Snyder trivialize this as yet another entry in their personally-held grievances against the podcast and its neighboring ecosystem of broadcast leftist media. Even when the concerns of a grooming victim should take center stage, those eager to ascribe an entire class of creators a similitude of behavior based on vague ideological coherence are being naive at best, perhaps even delusional at the very worst. Treating this as a phenomenon unique to Chapo or its adjacent entities very much ignores the long history of abuse that some content creators have indulged under the spell of ever-corrupting power and influence. Spoken plainly, competitors of Chapo aren’t any less vulnerable to doing the same-if they have media to sell, are a notable social media presence, and they interact with their fans on an even semi-frequent basis…they’re just as susceptible to doing what they accuse Chapo of being uniquely capable of. It’s important to properly contextualize this story amidst what has been a tumultuous year for content creators previously thought to be beyond reproach, with internet culture coverage proving itself ever-so-crucial as those traditionally held to tepid standards finally have an impetus not to succumb to their worst instincts. In that sense, it’s not really useful to classify this as a pathos unique to the leftist podcasting sphere as much as it is a byproduct of our reticence to engage with the thorny proposition of celebrity when it is sprung and powered by a medium of mass communication-it’s not until very recently that literature abording that very topic became more readily available for both fans and creators to educate and inoculate themselves against the faint, but very real possibility of an inappropriate interaction taking place. The above analysis isn’t meant to take away from Jennifer’s plight-her case is barely an aberration in this space. It serves more so as a reminder that even those with a principled moral and political stance against predation can indulge it-neither conservatives, nor those to Chapo’s right on the left are immune if only for having a tame sense of humor. It’s possible to sound the most deranged on a podcast and still maintain an orderly profile in private, and the opposite is just as plausible-to intuit Virgil or any of his former colleagues a problematic character based solely on their public demeanor does victims of grooming and sexual assault a major disservice by feeding into often deceiving and erroneous harmful stereotypes. Where to go from here then? It remains to be seen whether the Chapo crew will see fit to address these allegations - considering that Virgil hasn’t been a part of their roster for quite a while - but the lessons learned are no less valuable. Creators should take conscious stock of their every interaction with fans, perhaps with the serious consideration of limiting discussions to the content made-it also goes without saying that fans should familiarize themselves with the literature of parasocial relationships if they ever wish to not supercharge creators’ collective ego such that they think themselves to be beyond accountability when reprimand is due. The issue is a complex one to be sure, and it is made no less easy by lawmakers’ seeming disinterest to treat the internet with the seriousness it deserves, but there’s plenty all parties can do to mitigate further damage done in the future.
I'm not convinced there's anything there. Also I've never heard of those three people you named. CZcams drama, or "influencer" drama is absent from my radar generally, but especially now with the wars going on and in advanced stages of preparation by US gobal imperialism via NATO, Israel etc.
i love that they were dealing with *former fans of the show that now hate them* by episode #45
True greatness...
Felix's anger about the anti-abortion stance is so spot-on and refreshing. Not the first time I've heard that kind of response, but still really nice to hear such an honest reaction.
The one policy Dems have that they didn't legislate for 50 years
Glad to see Matt has made a full recovery and is back on the show.
Amazing how much younger he sounds after his respite.
10/1/16~~~2016 Day of Year Calendar
NASA (.gov)
asd.gsfc.nasa.gov › Craig.Markwardt › doy2016
JANUARY. Sun, Mon, Tue, Wed, Thu, Fri, Sat. 1 1, 2 2. 3 3, 4 4, 5 5, 6 6, 7 7, 8 8, 9 9. 10 10, 11 11, 12 12, 13 13, 14 14, 15 15, 16 16. 17 17, 18
Christ is -King- General Secretary
"Christ Is Comrade" is my take on Christian Socialism
My life was improved tremendously by my parents getting divorced. They're friends now. They did not get along when they had to live with each other.
Same
Can’t believe we got to hear Will go through puberty in real time over the last half decade
That episode where Will's balls audibly drop while they're discussing Mark Fisher.
Will sounds like he is 16 years old here lmao
young Will's higher pitch voice
One of the things that's led me to be firmly irreligious and secular is this existential realization that I have no idea why I'm here. Everyone stumbles upon this at some point and if they don't it's usually because they've avoided it by clinging onto some kind of hierarchal belief system. It's also why I'm a socialist by default - we have the means as a society to provide basic needs to everyone born into this world and it's morally wrong to oppose that or force conditions and demands on people for merely existing. That's also why the right-wingers harp on "family values" so much - they don't naively believe in that so much as they oppose their lost of control over their children or wives.
I find Catholic Workers interesting because the sincere ones are more preoccupied with helping others in society and their mission statement reflects that. But it's ultimately a needless structuring of a religion around what is the same ethos of secular leftist goals. The incredible thing about something like anti-abortion / "pro-life" movement is only a small percentage of that movement is composed of people who are also sincerely antiwar pacifists and advocates of social welfare. Everyone else who claims to be pro-life is, despite their claims otherwise, supports some form of religious fascism. The counter to this is is that abortion as a legal right is not a major issue to most liberal and progressive mainline Christians and Jews.
It's a safe assumption that anyone who claims communism or leftism is wrong because it's anti-religious isn't really concerned about religious or spiritual freedom on an individual level but actually one who actually fears the dismantling of religious hierarchies and theocratic governing.
That sounds like a rationalisation of unknowing. Not knowing why you are here is not the same as knowing that there is no reason you are here. Going from one to the other is jumping to a conclusion, using your unknowing - lack of data - as if it's a datum. I find the apologetics concerning the origin of the universe and the origin of life completely intellectually satisfying and convincing, and I've never heard an argument for atheism that was remotely as convincing or at all attractive. That's just me, think for yourself at all costs, but if you haven't read or heard the arguments for creation, fine tuning, the anthropic principle, the historicity of the biblical texts and such, you're lacking information. Of course proof is impossible, either way. That's not the point. The question is what's a reasonable position to take based on the arguments from circumstantial evidence. The other thing is to avoid working from strawmen about either claim. In my experience Atheists habitually misunderstand and misrepresent the idea of God actual monotheists actually believe in, and strawman monotheists themselves for that matter. Denouncing and ripping apart something we don't believe in gets nobody anywhere.
@@patrickholt2270 I think most atheists believed in god at one point. It's not a mystery
@@patrickholt2270That's odd, I've heard arguments falling under every category that you mentioned and every single one has been demonstrably fallacious, unsound, or otherwise wholly unable to demonstrate any of the foundational beliefs/claims to Christianity
@@patrickholt2270 The universe is fine tuned to be entirely inhospitable to life as we know it almost everywhere except this single planet. I think you'd have a leg to stand on if the bible depicted a god that loved hypoxia and the vacuum of space and was constantly punishing sinners by boiling the blood out of every one of their orifices. "Fine-tuning" except almost none of it is fine-tuned. "Fine-tuning", but by a completely inept agent, that gave a single planet to millions species that want to consume and multiply endlessly. Finely tuning every single pothole on my street so each puddle fits perfectly inside of its custom pothole.
What's the point of these apologetic arguments if they only impress people who already agree with them? How are you so impressed with these weak arguments?
I know this is really old, but something the chapo boys might have missed is that out of the 14 points the two specific enough to be truly meaningful were the marriage one and the abortion one. I don't know what became of these guys, but if they released this manifesto today I really wouldn't trust their commitment to the rest of it.
Man 2016 was like 2 lifetimes ago…
Didn't they follow up with a guest who help write this? I remember it went off the rails and Amber laid into him on abortion, to which he replied by praying for her. It was nuts.
what’s the episode number? lmao this sounds hilarious
@dangerousd1312 Matthew Walther interview I believe. I don't think it has an official number, it was a "forbidden" episode that had a CZcams upload years ago. No idea what that guy is up to these days but he sounded like a shambling alcoholic in the interview.
@@dangerousd1312 - If you type in "walther interview" it'll be first up in the results.
Yes that's the one. I remember it being on youtube.@@Strawbclock0
@@Strawbclock0 it’s still on youtube
The Confessions of Saint Frogustine
The Tradinista position on contraception, divorce, abortion, etc. is genuinely completely indefensible. But, despite that, I do have to give them a degree of credit for open and explicit opposition to homophobia and transphobia. That does come as a bit of a surprise from traditionalist Catholics (even left-wing ones). Though, given the fact that they also explicitly claim to be against misogyny and still can’t hold even basic positions on women’s rights, I’m not sure how true and robust this alleged support of gay and trans people might actually be.
The second part is exactly right. If they claim to oppose homophobia then turn around an immediately claim that marriage is an holy institution designed around procreation it definitely sets off alarms.
That was such a fun one
Jesus Christ Posse 🤘🔥☮️
Hasan lead me here and once again im introduced to more daily listens. this is awesome, found so many dope podcasts, people and creator whatevers, idk dude, a non gay thank you is not going to be proportionate anymore. but i probably wont meet him so carrying this heavy debt is probably stupid. guilt prone? guiltyyy
Fun fact: Franco had only one testicle and high pitch voice as a result
The fact that some have zero testicles, means that one is the median average amount of testicles to have.
Damn I got a Falun Gong advert on this lol
whoever just posted this, get some sleep. jesus it’s 5:30 in the morning
scheduled uploads
15:12 this is a great point about conservatism in general honestly
it's like, we already tried it your way and it clearly didn't work, what makes you think it's gonna be different this time
The things that "don't work" about conservatism are features, not bugs. It's very good at what it's meant to do, the problem is that what it's meant to do is horrific.
12:33 Among Us
How did they know???
Bah, we all know the true sovereign of America is Emperor Norton.
May he reign for a thousand years
Not founder and Ideological Leader of the Center for Political Innovation Caleb Maupin? Shame. I have no respect for Ben Norton. The Grayzone are the truth.
“Chatinista?” What is this group you’re referring to, I can’t find anything about it online
Tradinista. It was a group of reactionary American Catholics.
It’s Tradininista. A play on the Words “traditional catholic” or “trad cath”
They're offhandedly talking about the Red Scare crowd.
Classic
Matt !
17:06 well... turns out they most definitely are!
Mattttt! Lets go bud!
this is an clip from an old episode
I agree with most of this but did they really say the quality of the parents' relationship has little effect on the children?
Hello
This.
Matty Boy!
from like a decade ago...
The problem is that ideas like the seperation of church and state are simultaneously bourgeois ideology, and a religious doctrine, in that every faith has stances about the proper relationship between the faith and society, coming under the theological heading of ecclesiology, and the idea that the proper relationship between faith and politics is nil, is the ecclesiology, the religious doctrine, of only antheism, ba'haism and the most cultish forms of congregationalism. That's where the founding fathers got it from, from the predominance of congregationalist and anabaptist churches in the 13 colonies. The Puritans were Calvinists and had an opposite belief, which was that the self-governing congregations should also govern their towns and communities, that the two things should be the same thing, because the Calivinist and Lutheran conception was to create a new Christian uniformity to replace Catholicism as the effectively compulsory official state religions of the world, despite their emphasis on free willed acceptance of faith as the means of grace, not sacraments. It was the congregationalists coming out of the Independency faction in the New Model Army and the Anabaptists, as well as Mennonites, Hutterites and Moravians who instead asked for religious toleration and to be left alone by the state, because they were on the recieving end of persecution by all the established churches, whether Catholic or Protestant, and promoted that as their politics because it was their ecclesiology.
So secularism is a fraud because it's actually a specific ecclesiology of specific minority faiths (including atheism because its claims are unprovable and cannot be believed in except by faith). And as bourgeois ideology it's necessarily reactionary and anti-revolutionary in the fullest sense. The alienations caused by commodity fetishism and the regimes of property relations and class domination and exploitation include alienation of Man from God and of Man from spirituality which comes under species-self and species-being; alienation of humanity and of persons from their best selves and real potential. Religion is a false category as a compartmentalisation of life and people's thought and behaviour. It's a product of the bourgeois revolution designed to abstract the moral and spiritual from business and political decisionmaking to enable, normalise and naturalise ruthlessness and exploitation of man by man and the despoiling of nature.
Having said that I'm not a Catholic, and partly for the reasons you mention. I don't buy Papal Infallibility the same way I don't buy Democratic Centralism and its historical outcome in the form of one party states, and that degree of hierarchy culminating in a single figure (equally in the outcome of demoratic centralism as Rosa Luzemburg foresaw). I believe in a broader doctrinal toleration than is permitted within the RC church, or the Reformed churches. Sectarianism does no-one any good. I like the Anglican breadth of tolerance the way I like Rosa Luxemburg's broad tolerance of discussion and dissent within the working class movement as the necessity for building real whole-class organisation and the working class as a party. I think the manifesto points are wrong about laws and the state, and to the extent that that's coming straight out of the Catholic Catechism if they are, that's inaccurate on those points too. The law and the state do not in reality exist to coach the people in morality. Laws serve the interests of the wealth owning classes and as such enforce wickedness, and wickedness is written into law as scripture says. It's part of Conservative political ideology that the laws enforce and teach morality, and they use that as the pretext for an absolute, in principle authoritarianism which says that all resistance to the state and the hierachies of authority in society, including business ownership and the treatment of workers by employers, is always wrong and should be punished, and for treating tax and welfare policies as means to punish the poor for being poor on the presumption that people are poor through personal moral failings. It may be the case that the state and the laws should serve to enforce and teach morality, but in fact they don't, and that's why Jesus raised the banner of the kingdom of God on earth which the status quo was not and is not. It is why that original revolutionary goal was required and still is, and the mere existence of the church, all the churches, the Chuch Militant and otherwise, has not erased the false kingdoms, the principalities and powers, from the world to create the society in which the Sermon on the Mount becomes the temporal socio-economic and socio-political reality. So it's not just a false statement about the present ordering of the world, it's also false eschatology, because it implies that in terms of the state and laws the kingdom of God is already triumphant when it is not, which requires the proletarian world revolution inter alia. So there's confusion about cosmology and eschatology there.
I've always felt that the anathematisation of abortion is a bolt-on to faith, strictly optional and not grounded in scripture It's incredibly far from central in Biblical teachings, in fact it's another one of those things Jesus never mentioned once, although abortion did exist in the ancient world. As a political cause it's very recent, only beginning to be made a fuss about in the 20th century, as a means to move believers to the right especially in US politics, coming from outside the churches and directed at the churches to get them to move more towards anti-communism and anti-modernism, not coming from inside the churches to change conservative politics. The Biblical and theolgical arguments fom first principles in favour of compassion for mothers and preferencing the lives of mothers over foetuses are much stronger in my opinion. Among other things, the idea that human life begins at conception is a Chrstina doctrine is contradicted by the rite of baptism in every church, otherwise baptism would not be delayed until after birth. If the fertilised ovum already has a soul, then that soul is in danger within the womb and ought to be saved immediately by the sacrament of initiation in case it dies before birth, as many always have. The fact that the church only administers baptism after birth demonstrates that the Christian doctrine is actually that human life begins at birth, and it is only from birth onwards that we have human rights and Christians are commanded to fight to deliver blessing according to need.
Actually a fetus feels pain, so Christians are obliged to outlaw abortion. Atheism is a statement based on probability, like the laws of physics. A statement or political movement can be imperfect and still be far superior to the alternative.
I definitely resonate with your critique of secularism, in that by restricting religious morality to the personal sphere the bourgeois class has effectively removed even the pretense of morality from law enforcement. It definitely feels like a lot of right wingers who profess the Christian faith are more interested in broadcasting their “morality” in terms of issues like marraige, sex, etc. yet have no problem preserving and justifying the exploitation of the proletariat by the capitalist class.
tl;dr
Atheism makes no claims and is not a belief. It is a rejection of theism and nothing more.
We humans need to be more honest with ourselves about what we do and do not know. If you claim deity A exists, then you need to substantiate your claim. If you can't substantiate your claim, then others should dismiss and not respect your claim.
Hey! Maybe God is a trans lesbian woman, wouldn't that make Chapo look really, really bad?
God plays osu
Being a popular cultural produce, Chapo Trap House naturally invites itself to blanket characterizations by those skeptical of its cast and their influence, so it’s been rather disappointing to see familiar faces like Jude Doyle, Xeni Jardin and Gwen Snyder trivialize this as yet another entry in their personally-held grievances against the podcast and its neighboring ecosystem of broadcast leftist media. Even when the concerns of a grooming victim should take center stage, those eager to ascribe an entire class of creators a similitude of behavior based on vague ideological coherence are being naive at best, perhaps even delusional at the very worst.
Treating this as a phenomenon unique to Chapo or its adjacent entities very much ignores the long history of abuse that some content creators have indulged under the spell of ever-corrupting power and influence. Spoken plainly, competitors of Chapo aren’t any less vulnerable to doing the same-if they have media to sell, are a notable social media presence, and they interact with their fans on an even semi-frequent basis…they’re just as susceptible to doing what they accuse Chapo of being uniquely capable of.
It’s important to properly contextualize this story amidst what has been a tumultuous year for content creators previously thought to be beyond reproach, with internet culture coverage proving itself ever-so-crucial as those traditionally held to tepid standards finally have an impetus not to succumb to their worst instincts. In that sense, it’s not really useful to classify this as a pathos unique to the leftist podcasting sphere as much as it is a byproduct of our reticence to engage with the thorny proposition of celebrity when it is sprung and powered by a medium of mass communication-it’s not until very recently that literature abording that very topic became more readily available for both fans and creators to educate and inoculate themselves against the faint, but very real possibility of an inappropriate interaction taking place.
The above analysis isn’t meant to take away from Jennifer’s plight-her case is barely an aberration in this space. It serves more so as a reminder that even those with a principled moral and political stance against predation can indulge it-neither conservatives, nor those to Chapo’s right on the left are immune if only for having a tame sense of humor. It’s possible to sound the most deranged on a podcast and still maintain an orderly profile in private, and the opposite is just as plausible-to intuit Virgil or any of his former colleagues a problematic character based solely on their public demeanor does victims of grooming and sexual assault a major disservice by feeding into often deceiving and erroneous harmful stereotypes.
Where to go from here then? It remains to be seen whether the Chapo crew will see fit to address these allegations - considering that Virgil hasn’t been a part of their roster for quite a while - but the lessons learned are no less valuable. Creators should take conscious stock of their every interaction with fans, perhaps with the serious consideration of limiting discussions to the content made-it also goes without saying that fans should familiarize themselves with the literature of parasocial relationships if they ever wish to not supercharge creators’ collective ego such that they think themselves to be beyond accountability when reprimand is due. The issue is a complex one to be sure, and it is made no less easy by lawmakers’ seeming disinterest to treat the internet with the seriousness it deserves, but there’s plenty all parties can do to mitigate further damage done in the future.
Post or pre-op?
@@brendanoshea2936 Dunno, maybe the Pope knows....
Chapo constantly evolving... it is now Pod Save America combined with Ned Flanders wife who shrieks "won't someone think of the children." Keep going guys, you are too talented to not find an audience. 3000 views and counting!
Go outside
@@robertwolff8928 Dang, you got me with that one! Is Chapo on Patreon or OF? How can fans help build this community?!?!
@@kimoandrews5802 Gonna have to agree with the other poster here. Go Outside.
@@kimoandrews5802it's nice out dude, get your steps in
@@kimoandrews5802 matt christman onlyfans when
I just hatewatch these guys, but boy, is this pod toast without the cushbomb dude
Hell of a thing to admit to, good for you 👍
you said but boy lol
What a loser lmao
don't act like you don't know his name
Maybe you should hate walk into the sea
Being a popular cultural produce, Chapo Trap House naturally invites itself to blanket characterizations by those skeptical of its cast and their influence, so it’s been rather disappointing to see familiar faces like Jude Doyle, Xeni Jardin and Gwen Snyder trivialize this as yet another entry in their personally-held grievances against the podcast and its neighboring ecosystem of broadcast leftist media. Even when the concerns of a grooming victim should take center stage, those eager to ascribe an entire class of creators a similitude of behavior based on vague ideological coherence are being naive at best, perhaps even delusional at the very worst.
Treating this as a phenomenon unique to Chapo or its adjacent entities very much ignores the long history of abuse that some content creators have indulged under the spell of ever-corrupting power and influence. Spoken plainly, competitors of Chapo aren’t any less vulnerable to doing the same-if they have media to sell, are a notable social media presence, and they interact with their fans on an even semi-frequent basis…they’re just as susceptible to doing what they accuse Chapo of being uniquely capable of.
It’s important to properly contextualize this story amidst what has been a tumultuous year for content creators previously thought to be beyond reproach, with internet culture coverage proving itself ever-so-crucial as those traditionally held to tepid standards finally have an impetus not to succumb to their worst instincts. In that sense, it’s not really useful to classify this as a pathos unique to the leftist podcasting sphere as much as it is a byproduct of our reticence to engage with the thorny proposition of celebrity when it is sprung and powered by a medium of mass communication-it’s not until very recently that literature abording that very topic became more readily available for both fans and creators to educate and inoculate themselves against the faint, but very real possibility of an inappropriate interaction taking place.
The above analysis isn’t meant to take away from Jennifer’s plight-her case is barely an aberration in this space. It serves more so as a reminder that even those with a principled moral and political stance against predation can indulge it-neither conservatives, nor those to Chapo’s right on the left are immune if only for having a tame sense of humor. It’s possible to sound the most deranged on a podcast and still maintain an orderly profile in private, and the opposite is just as plausible-to intuit Virgil or any of his former colleagues a problematic character based solely on their public demeanor does victims of grooming and sexual assault a major disservice by feeding into often deceiving and erroneous harmful stereotypes.
Where to go from here then? It remains to be seen whether the Chapo crew will see fit to address these allegations - considering that Virgil hasn’t been a part of their roster for quite a while - but the lessons learned are no less valuable. Creators should take conscious stock of their every interaction with fans, perhaps with the serious consideration of limiting discussions to the content made-it also goes without saying that fans should familiarize themselves with the literature of parasocial relationships if they ever wish to not supercharge creators’ collective ego such that they think themselves to be beyond accountability when reprimand is due. The issue is a complex one to be sure, and it is made no less easy by lawmakers’ seeming disinterest to treat the internet with the seriousness it deserves, but there’s plenty all parties can do to mitigate further damage done in the future.
My, my, my...
I'm not convinced there's anything there. Also I've never heard of those three people you named. CZcams drama, or "influencer" drama is absent from my radar generally, but especially now with the wars going on and in advanced stages of preparation by US gobal imperialism via NATO, Israel etc.
AI story mode activated