I don't really get your contention here. From Bill Maher to tweets literally posted ITT, there's a general disdain for religion. I'm not saying every lib is an atheist, but it's not a rare tactic, and it's a bad one.
Mayor Pete turned out to be a gross establishment shill but one thing I liked and like about his message was asking why the right has to have a monopoly on religion when Christ was pretty much a libcuck. Have to give credit where it's due, I suppose. Think it's also a much more helpful message than ones delivered by insufferable douches like Bill Maher.
yeah like in no sense am I defending the repugnant hypocritical pharisaical monstrosity that the right does but the 'smug liberal douche about religion' stereotype exists for a reason edit and hard pass on Jesus as lib
I guess my issue is the casting of an overly wide net where you’re saying anyone from Chuck Todd to a resistance twitter commenter is a liberal pundit. I would guess without any data to back it up the majority of those falling within that bucket are much more friendly than hostile toward religion. My bigger issue is just the use of the term blue check which I associate with the worst of right wing media personalities straight up owning libs.
liberal cultural voice? commentary class? clout economy? idk, man, I think that exists as for the cringe term, sorry-- really didn't know it was the exclusive purview of the right. But they may not be wrong about it. Twitter is stuffed to the gills with PMCs trying to get clout by having 'takes' in the 'discourse.' It's like literal punditry.
Alright so putting aside the different definitions of liberal I think we can agree most of Jesus' teachings fit squarely into "the left" in contemporary America, yes?
Jesus was a left winger, yes. That isn't liberal, especially in contemporary America. I'll drop the pedantry stuff but I think it's important.
It honestly might not be a right wing term but I associate it that way since that’s where I’ve seen it used with negative connotation the most.
"It is super duper easy for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. The richer the better, really. Maybe get a solid gold house just to be sure." -Jesus 31 A.D.
one little bit of pedantry left it isn't fair to call Jesus a communist either since communism is an extension of capitalism which did not exist in any sense then. but like redistribution and the rabbinical concept of the jubilee would have been familiar to him, as would the brutality of imperialism and political worship (often literal) of heads of state. you could characterize what we know of the historical Jesus as left wing even though it's an anachronism from the 18th century because he was a revolutionary that challenged existing power structures and political economy. certainly the theological christ would be considered revolutionary as well, as he literally invented a new religion inside an old one.
"blue check" annoys me in that it means completely ignoring the reason that the indicator exists - to make sure that people are who they claim to be. It isn't meant to ascribe any credentials or any particular value on the person who has it.
those things are completely linked. the take economy is predicated on authentic voices giving the takes. professors, writers, lawyers-- all people who can get verified, and then participate in the general discourse. what term would you prefer? take makers?
are you? and why do some people choose to get verified? isn't it to validate their takes? to make sure that they are properly credited with the takes, and that no one pretending to be Professor McGee is making those takes inauthentically? and yes, twitter is literally an informal class of people who make commentary. look at half the political threads on this site-- C&P tweets. it's literally constitutive of a huge swath of the discourse. what is the bone here? what is the alternative? I'm open to it, seriously "informal sources of cultural commentary who are often also formal sources of cultural commentary but who use a particular platform to propagate their perspectives" seems inconvenient
I'd genuinely be curious to break down the verified twitter accounts by: celebrities and journalists, writers, professors, lawyers, experts, politicians-- take havers hell, even the celebrities use twitter to... make... takes...
to be clear I'm not whining about blue checks-- I don't know how else to refer to the semi-formal category of punditry facilitated by the internet
No you can't. Twitter verification is limited to accounts "determined to be of public interest." It doesn't just mean that the person is who he says he is. https://help.twitter.com/en/managin... may be verified,and other key interest areas.
in other words, every day people whose perspectives would be of interest and thus bear authenticating like, idk, people who make commentary I'll drop this because it really wasn't a dog whistle or some trigger term, but the semi-formal take class exists
My college roommate who is a Republican state legislator has like 700 Twitter followers and a blue check.
I completely understood your reference, it's not a hot-take either but kind of a somewhat accurate consensus that most lefties on Twitter have about lots of media pundits.
Disagree. “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.”
But it doesn't. At all. Fulfilling is creating a new religion. When a large part of your religion is waiting on a promised Messiah claiming to be that promised Messiah absolutely is creating something new. That is, when there are still people waiting for the promised Messiah.
It absolutely does. Jesus’ own words on the topic are that he is not here to create a new religion - merely to fulfill prophecy. He is Jewish. He sees himself as such. His followers can be said to have created a new religion (dozens of them actually) but not Jesus. Jesus is explicit about this one thing.
of course bud. don’t want to get confused by who’s posting what between you and your doppelgänger indeed anymore lol
Agreed 100%, as someone that used to be overly dickish, my stance has changed to everyone has a right to follow whatever religion they want as long as it does not infringe on others rights they are welcome to preach But I also wish we actually took separation of church and state seriously, so that when I passed a church in Florida with a billboard claiming democrats want to murder babies, they lose their tax exempt status