Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Mainboard' started by southlick, Sep 18, 2020.
honey nut chex are tasty
Gluten free? I'm going to have to give that a try
Made with rice flour I think.
^^ big facts
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.
Oh? At the very least most of his message is in direct contradiction to the contemporary right
Jesus is fine with locking babies in cages so long as they’ve been born. Read a bible, man.
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.
Jesus seemed more like a communist tbh
Yeah, but liberals are right wing.
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.
Jesus didn't even have money. Really makes you think...
broke ass christ chilling with the tax man and the sex worker and flogging financiers in the temple
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.
Yeah, wasn't trying to set off any warning flags there.
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?
yea but we *all* can get verified if we want to. It isn't reserved for some "pundit" class.
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:
journalists, writers, professors, lawyers, experts, politicians-- take havers
hell, even the celebrities use twitter to... make... takes...
my favorite is when people with blue checks whine about people with blue checks
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
tmb needs blue check marks for users
I stand corrected
I swear it didn't used to be that way.
He's being pedantic about the actual vs perceived U.S. political spectrum.
I am triggered AF
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.
“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.”
Nothing you quoted contradicts what mick said.
It absolutely does.
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.
Jesus Christ this tangent sucks.
this is good
didn't want to imply that fwiw
would I be one
of course bud. don’t want to get confused by who’s posting what between you and your doppelgänger indeed anymore lol
this is too far man
**Susan's brow furrowing intensifies**
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