There is no “nationalism” essential to Christianity, Hitler’s Germany is the antithesis of Christianity.

But again, I get it. You don’t seem to like religion and you think it infects our politics too much.

See, I can agree with you that religion should be kept out of government policy. So we could agree on many things you might want to make policy (like maybe no teaching Bible in public school without teaching about all world religions, and no teaching Intelligent Design in science class - maybe in a philosophy class discussion about Aristotle…)

And I agree history is crap these days (but I blame wokeness for that). And I agree the education system is full of issues to work out. It would take a long history and discussion to address all you’ve raised.

But a discussion like that, with a motif and theme of all the ways Christians qua Christians have hurt the world with someone who doesn’t seem to see the vastly greater goods many people have done, in their attempts to be more like Christ - seems unproductive to do like this, or on this thread. — Fire Ologist

I am glad you could do such a fine job of raising awareness of the good things Christians have done. However, I have heard Catholics are not Christians. For me, that judgment is one of the biggest problems with the whole Christian mess. Christians seem to disagree with each other even more than they disagree with Jews and Muslims about who knows God's truth and who does not. These three religions have the same fundamental stories. Those are pagan stories and beliefs adjusted to different cultures. I do not understand how people can continue to live in those ancient stories when it is so obvious a God did not make us of mud and then leave us in a Garden of Eden with magical trees. It is also a fact that both the Garden of Eden and the Flood stories were Sumerian stories of creation and the flood. These beliefs are not supported by logic when people are working with a scientific explanation of life. How can we have good judgment when we are living with a false understanding of how we came to be?

However, I very much like the Catholic men who were the presidents of the U S or tried to be. I would love to take us all back in history to when Kucinich ran against Bush, and then take us down the path Kucinich, a Catholic, would have followed. He was strongly opposed to the Neocons' efforts to take military control of the Middle East, the Bush and Cheney "New Century American Project" that was a disaster, with Christians cheering for our war against "evil" and being thrilled by the US Shock and Awe attack on Iraq. As though this war game were equal to a football game.

You really do not know enough about what I think to judge if I am speaking about religion or politics. I see the good Christians as ignorant of their enemies, and that they are a threat to the world because their beliefs are not separate from their political judgment. THEY GO TO WAR COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY IGNORANT OF THEIR "ENEMY" AND DO SO IN THE NAME OF GOD AND BELIEF ABOUT EVIL. I hate the reality Bush and Cheney gave us; instead of a world of peace, Kucinich would have given us. Today, it is almost impossible to find any mention of Kucinich. It is as though those in control of what is on the internet have an agenda to disappear this man.

If you agree that religion should be kept out of political matters, and what nations we attempt to control with military force, why don't you see the Christian Nationalism? The evangelicals and men like Billy Graham have played a strong role in creating our story of who is the "evil" and our enemy, and who we must defend or ignore. I can not use AI to raise awareness of "proof of Christian Nationalism", but people can Google for the explanation of why it threatens our democracy and the world. Since the beginning of the US, the citizens have believed it is God's will that they control the political decisions, including wars. The Civil War was really nasty, as both sides believed God was on their side and they were doing the will of God to kill those "evil people" who opposed God's will. I want you to think about this- how do humans know God's will?

Yeah, Lincoln had "In God we trust" inscribed on pennies, taking advantage of religion to win the war against the South. Much later, Billy Graham advanced the power of Evangelicals by once again equating our government and Christianity as the same thing- a war against evil, uniting the US against those godless communists. Creating those godless Russians as the "evil" our God fearing country must oppose.

If the Bible were not Hebrew propaganda, and later Christian propaganda, and then the bases for Muslim propaganda, and the citizens of the US were not such stooges, we might have a better world and not the racist struggle we still have, with these "dark skinned people cursed by God", and not be all tied up with Woke following a long history of persecuting homosexual people.

How can God forgive people who believe they are God's favored people, and who take no responsibility for the wrongs done to "those people"? Christians are not the only human beings with viable spiritual and moral systems. And the democracy of the US is not based on the Bible, a book about kings and slaves, and God's promise to give people the hierarchy of rulers that humans require because they are born in sin. You know that evil spiritual ether in the air that somehow ties us to Satan and demons. Thank goodness we are not superstitions, right? But we have to do something about "those evil people".

When bad things happen, is it God punishing us, or Satan, or is it our own evilness that causes this wrong?

Don't be a whinny bitch. You're welcome. :lol: — praxis

That is pretty sexist comment. :gasp: And it has no intellectual appeal.

Sorry, I was in an emotional frenzy.

Sorry, I was in an emotional frenzy. — praxis

:lol: I can relate to that.

You've linked a book here. I am not going to buy and read a book to try to find evidence for you. — Mijin

my bad, I was trying to link to my review of the book, written by the author of the links I posted. Those links are what I encourage you to read.

The people that whined about trans people choosing their own pronouns don't give a toss about people being deported, defunded, fired, imprisoned etc on the basis of their political views. — Mijin

Yup, I agree, and have written as much throughout.

I object to violations of free speech rights on both sides of the political spectrum. If you don't live in the US, why are you defaulting to their oppositional binary?

If you care about free speech, you oppose all violations.

Personally speaking, I was cancelled from my teaching job for playing a hiphop song, which essentially destroyed the rest of my life. That's a left-wing offense against free speech. There are millions of other examples.

If you are genuinely open to changing your mind, you should be able to conjure a solitary example of your differing from woke orthodoxy.

It appears to me that you cannot?

:love:

The woke had snuck their coolaid well into the water supply for 30 plus years — Fire Ologist

I just read Orwell's "The Road to Wigan Pier", written in 1936. His descriptions of the contempt the bourgeois display towards the working class was remarkably resonant - I think the trends you are describing go back much further. I can think of myriad examples in American movies (I like horror) of working class / rural people terrorizing the middle class. It's all part of the same stew.

Have you seen the interaction between Trump and Carney in the Whitehouse this week? — Fire Ologist

Parts of it. Plenty of coverage here. The most consistent take is that it's 'humiliating' for Carney, but that Carney is playing the right cards. I don't know why Trump seems to like him more than other leaders, tbh.

He is doing a lot of good, and many just refuse to see it. — Fire Ologist

If the peace in Gaza holds, that's a major win. He has certainly restored some semblance of non-partisanship in certain sectors, some universities, etc. He has normalized opposition to open-door immigration. But the DOGE fiasco is / has killed people reliant on medical funding, for example. I imagine more consequences - from say, mass firings - will reveal themselves over time.

Four years of unanimous conviction of Trumps “Russian collusion” and then unanimous “Hunter Biden’s laptop didn’t exist and was more Russian misinformation” - the press sucks. — Fire Ologist

Yeah, mainstream press has zero credibility overall. Individual journalists continue to do good work, but the rise of DEI departments divided the young from the old and choked out dissenting voices. Major corporations, being risk-averse, just go with the flow. Interesting about Bari Weiss at CBS eh? That feels like a good example of the pendulum swing you describe.

I think the worst proponents of “that forced binary choice on moral issues that I think is fueling the worst of the culture wars” comes more often from proponents of woke liberalism. — Fire Ologist

Agreed. The conservatives I know will mock / dismiss lefty points I might make with glee, but they won't judge me evil for making them.

We need to struggle through how to deal with it, but I don’t think I will ever be convinced that government censorship or force of law should have very much place in any management of the shitstorm social media creates. I just know what the UK is doing is utter unjust. — Fire Ologist

It's the addictive nature that governments could address, or the monopolistic nature of these huge corporations. We haven't been able to post Canadian news on FB for several years now, as Zuckerberg battles our attempts to regulate social media. That's the scary part - these companies are more powerful than states, and we have almost no choice but to participate in online life.

Frankly, I'd like to see governments protecting individual rights to NOT have to interact via devices.

“The power of free speech is in the simplicity of it. Once you start qualifying it, free speech ceases to exist.” — Fire Ologist

That's better, I like it!

I don’t think there is anything compromised by choosing the lesser of evils between an inevitable winner. That literally describes me in the polls every time I vote - I pick who I think might screw up and piss me off and hurt my family the least. Who might, because chances are they likely are going to hurt me. I have never voted for a candidate I thought was really good. — Fire Ologist

The thing I fear most around tribalism is that these tribes - perhaps woke most egregiously - are now more virtual, less local. The tribalism is accelerating the sense that people communicate with those who share their beliefs online, and I fear breeding suspicion in more local interactions.

It certainly feels like people are more suspicious of one another in person than it did even 10 years ago. Online norms are being downloaded IRL.

At the end of the day, my dislike of woke starts with the fact that wokeness seems to breed suspicion in others. How could it not, if we are hypothetically all guilty of subconscious bias, all pawns of invisible, machiavellian systems of oppression? When truth is relative and objectivity to be feared?

I just sucks to feel strongly about the truth in a world of sheep who care only about consensus — Fire Ologist

100%.

Cheers man.

I object to violations of free speech rights on both sides of the political spectrum. If you don't live in the US, why are you defaulting to their oppositional binary?

If you care about free speech, you oppose all violations. — Jeremy Murray

I *do* oppose all violations, I am just focusing on the currently most widespread and dangerous.

As I said in my initial post in this thread, something akin to woke outrage has been the case for decades in the UK, under the banner of "political correctness gone MAD". It was almost always exaggerations if not outright bollocks, but it reliably sold newspapers. It's also made us vote against our own best interests several times (e.g. brexit).

And right now we're on the edge of the same cliff that the US is hurtling down. There's plenty of disinformation about migrants and trans etc in the UK, the latest one being that migrants are eating swans (why is that familiar)? We're in a weird place where accusing someone of racism is treated more seriously than actual racist propaganda.
Which has helped a far-right party lead in election polls. If they get in, I think it's just a matter of time before we have universities, journalists, broadcast media etc gagged in the name of "protecting" us from "woke".

That said, the UK is a more symmetrical situation than the situation in the US. There are things that the left (-ish) wing government has done that I strongly object to, like proscribing Palestine Action as a terrorist group, and the recent arrest of a screenwriter for offensive (but not illegal) views.
The 1 : 100 estimate of severity earlier was meant for the US.

Apparently the death of woke is a bit premature.

‘I love Hitler’: Leaked messages expose Young Republicans’ racist chat

, saw that. :D
Up-and-coming politicians that I wouldn't want for mayor, or other representative.
They picked up some of that Trump.

Outcry after US strips visas from six foreigners over Charlie Kirk remarks (— Guardian · Oct 15, 2025)

18 of Charlie Kirk's alleged quotes, investigated (— Snopes · Oct 11, 2025)

There are not three genotypes for SRY. There are not three genotypes for SRY. There are not three genotypes for SRY. Go and ask ChatGPT (I don't want to just post a quote because you'll charge me with altering it). Go and put this prompt in "are there three genotypes for SRY". I do not require an apology. — AmadeusD

And the part where your cite disputes your conclusion is this:

"Mutations [of the SRY gene] lead to a range of disorders of sex development with varying effects on an individual's phenotype and genotype" — Mijin

This is not contrary to my position. It really does look like you cannot read a biological paper. That is no problem, but continually making it clear you cannot handle this conversation is not helping. You have not addressed anything I have come back with. You are simply repeating yourself in the face of contrary evidence. Again, ask ChatGPT. I do not require an apology. But you are exactly wrong.

And then your own cites say:

"SRY is clearly important for the development of male sex, although in rare instances a male phenotype can develop in its absence" — Mijin

I responded to this in full which you have ignored.

To clarify the first italicised line, this is clearly pointing out that males can have varying phenotype. That means physical presentation. Not sex. Has nothing to do with whether one is male or female. Having a big nose is phenotypic. This is not news. This is not affecting sex determination. — AmadeusD

This does not indicate anything other than a binary. It actually reinforces the binary, which I explained in detail. You just charged me with not reading my own citations. You aren't even reading my posts. This is perhaps the most obviious disingenuous thing you have done so far. Utterly bereft of any integrity at all. It is lying.

I have explained you that I am not talking about translocation; that's your word, not mine. I said the genotype and mentioned alleles. — Mijin

There is no third genotype. Translocation is the only "third option" for SRY and it is a location aberration. It has nothing to do with sex. Alleles don't come into this. You are wrong.

I don't understand why you don't read your own cites.
Look, I'm not your enemy here. Consider this helpful because one day you could be on a debate stage trying to defend these talking points. — Mijin

You are not doing anything, Mijin. You are flailing and repeating yourself in the face of overwhelmingly clear evidence against your position.

Sex is binary. You have no presented any possible way for that to not be the case. Taking some kind of intellectual high ground over not being capable of addressing your interlocutor's points, arguments, citations or anything else it seems, is not something i need advice on. It would be far more reasonable for me to sit you down like a child and explain that evidence is not your enemy.

He was a culture war grifter, yes. Everyone needs to make a buck or two, or 12 million. — praxis

That is hateful, given it's not true. But that's...yknow. Your opinion man.

That is hateful, given it's not true. But that's...yknow. Your opinion man. — AmadeusD

It’s my informed opinion, yes. It’s not my opinion that he was an abomination or other superstitiously hated thing.

It’s my informed opinion, yes. It’s not my opinion that he was an abomination or other superstitiously hated thing. — praxis

I think his point was, he genuinely believed in everything he expressed (and perhaps quite a bit he chose not to, as a nod to your suspicious sentiment). At least, that's what the poster you're replying to believes that he believed.

Well, in my opinion, I honor Kirk by seeing the real person. People like Amadeus want to erase the real Kirk and replace him with a cartoonish cardboard cutout of the man, complete with a cheap neon halo. That's not hate, but it sure ain't love.

That is hte exact opposite of reality and I cannot respect such a delusional take on something that is there for all to see with their eyes.

You are hateful towards Charlie, evidenced by your inability to engage with the reality of his character. You're stuck on some conclusionary belief about his character which is evidenced by nothing. You cannot present anything that could support your position. So it is dismissed.

I wasn't a fan. I am not right-wing, I am not religious and I'm not particularly concerned with constitutional issues beyond free expression (as makes sense here). I mainly watched his clips to find ways to understand how the in fuck people found it worthy their time to be so dishonest, hateful and frankly stupid as to call him things like ;'bigot', 'Nazi' etc... when he literally said absolutely nothing that they claim he said. Given there are droves of leftists having to eat their words on this, I'm pretty comfortable saying I made a good decision to step away from the hateful, death-celebrating (not you, praxis) ideology behind beliefs like yours.

You cannot present anything that could support your position.

…

I mainly watched his clips to find ways to understand how the in fuck people found it worthy their time to be so dishonest, hateful and frankly stupid as to call him things like ;'bigot', 'Nazi' etc... — AmadeusD

I informed you about how, for example, Kirk publicly claimed that trans people are an “abomination.”
And you wonder why some people disliked him and thought he was a bigot. It’s not a mystery if you’re willing to see the truth.

Kirk publicly claimed that trans people are an “abomination.” — praxis

This is the disconnect. That I find it strange you are unable to see.

There is no third sex in any organism that exists or has ever existed. There is, at best, "budding" or self-replication, and species that change genders due to established DNA coding that science can detect. But no mammals.

This is about "societal norms" and "gender roles" that can be forced upon any individual by a larger or prevalent enough person or majority.

It was scientifically impossible to alter one's body to conform to that of a different sex until 50 years ago due to surgical invention. Humans or human-like species have allegedly existed for hundreds of thousands of years.

Some people just want to watch the world burn. They'd gladly kill a person, perhaps who is famous, even if they end up in jail or shot. So, to kill a concept, such as man and female, and to keep oneself alive despite disfiguring oneself through mutilation or surgery, just seems like a better option.

No one has yet to explain why people who choose to surgically, permanently, and irreversibly alter their body were 90% of the time bullied, ostracized, abused, or otherwise treated differently, often at a young crucial age of development. Because it's self-evident. A mind, especially a vulnerable or young one can be led to believe anything. That's documented, scientific fact. Like I said before, No happy and accepted or appreciated man wakes up one day and says to himself "You know what, I should have been born with a vagina." Not one.

It's miserable people seeing how far they can push other people while getting away with it and not technically breaking any laws. No laws that currently exist, at least. Cowardice laws are the one thing missing from this world to make it utopia. I pray you don't find yourself on the wrong side of them when they arrive. And they will soon.

This is the disconnect. That I find it strange you are unable to see. — Outlander

But I do see. I see the situation clearly.

The twisted notion that anything is an abomination springs from moral absolutism or the sheepish belief in a hierarchy of objective values. It is the epitome of bigotry. The essence of bigotry is irrational attachment to one’s own group or viewpoint, coupled with hostility or contempt (aka abomination) toward others who differ. Bigotry isn’t just disagreement, it’s closed-mindedness elevated to moral certainty. A bigot like Kirk didn’t merely think trans are wrong or misguided as you mistakenly suggest; he consider them abominations. It's not just 'you are wrong,' but 'you should not exist.'

There is no third genotype. Translocation is the only "third option" for SRY and it is a location aberration. It has nothing to do with sex. Alleles don't come into this. You are wrong. — AmadeusD

There's only so many times I can point out to you that your own cites allude to multiple genotypes of SRY (as there are multiple genotypes for any non-fatal gene), so let's just cut to the chase.

Which human biologists have claimed that human sex is a function of the SRY gene and is binary?

I informed you about how, for example, Kirk publicly claimed that trans people are an “abomination.”
And you wonder why some people disliked him and thought he was a bigot. It’s not a mystery if you’re willing to see the truth. — praxis

No, I don't wonder why. People are really stupid and (as it seems you are quite disposed to do) actually look for things to get upset about because it scores them social justice points. This isn't controversial or profound. This is what people have done since time immemorial and social media has simply made this the social currency of the generations below mine. That's why, in the main, the people who have a problem with Kirk 1. Don't know what the fuck he actually said or meant (your abomination example is perfect. I've already addressed it even). 2. Are genuinely wanting to find dragons to slay where there generally are none and 3. are fucking stupid. They are inexperienced, undereducated, generally socially compromised and unable to handle criticism.

Forgive me for not taking too seriously what young, inexperienced and unable-to-articulate-anything-meaningful-about-their-positions students think of Charlie Kirk.

A bigot like Kirk didn’t merely think trans are wrong or misguided as you mistakenly suggest; he consider them abominations. It's not just 'you are wrong,' but 'you should not exist.' — praxis

You genuinely seem unable to stick to reality. So I shall pass on further engagement here.

There's only so many times I can point out to you that your own cites allude to multiple genotypes of SRY (as there are multiple genotypes for any non-fatal gene), so let's just cut to the chase. — Mijin

I have now addressed that exact thing four times. You repeating your patently, demonstrable and obviously false position doesn't change it. I have provided ample evidence, with highlights ,providing that you are flat-out, dead wrong and I have provided direct, ample evidence for such. You can pretend this isn't the case if it makes you feel better, but reality will be waiting for you when you are mature enough. You asked me for certain things. I gave them to you. Your now have your fingers in your ears.

Which human biologists have claimed that human sex is a function of the SRY gene and is binary? — Mijin

All of the ones I posted, including providing quotes and explaining hte slightly nuanced technical language in a way that is easily understood by those who cannot read a biological paper except to cherry pick buzz words they think, but are wrong about, supporting their erroneous view.

my friend, you are wrong and all of the evidence is in front of you. There is no third genotype for SRY. Nothing I've posted suggests this and I['ve given you the opportunity to challenge your erroneous belief and you have absolutely and purposefully failed to even clearly read my comments let alone follow references. At this point, you are lying. That's on you. Unless you're trolling (which seems the most logical conclusion). In which case that's on me. Touche.

People are really stupid and (as it seems you are quite disposed to do) actually look for things to get upset about... — AmadeusD

Kirk, and other culture warriors, profit from catering to such people.

A bigot like Kirk didn’t merely think trans are wrong or misguided as you mistakenly suggest; he consider them abominations. It's not just 'you are wrong,' but 'you should not exist.'
— praxis

You genuinely seem unable to stick to reality. So I shall pass on further engagement here. — AmadeusD

Oh right, Kirk and his followers think trans should exist. What reality are you living in?

Kirk, and other culture warriors, profit from catering to such people. — praxis

A bigot like Kirk — AmadeusD

This is the part that I believe is liable to cause confusion. First sentence might suggest he's only doing it for the money i.e. doesn't really give a hoot let alone believe a word he's saying and is simply saying so to pander to a given audience for a strictly financial incentive. Second sentence would seem to suggest he genuinely espouses these views, and any profit made is simply icing on the cake or otherwise "just comes with the territory." That's probably what the poster whom you're replying to is a bit hung up on.

I'm very good at bridging the gaps between people. A bit too good, really. I was run out of the last town I tried to enlighten, Socrates-style. (Not really. Not yet, at least.)

I have changing views about the topic, really. I think people who identify as transgender (who have or are seriously considering permanent, irreversible surgical alteration) are vulnerable people, and vulnerable people should not be targeted. On the other hand, I can agree with the idea that the medical system (and others) are doing more harm than good, possibly, to echo your earlier frustration, strictly for the money without any genuine compassion or concern for the well-being of those they choose to involve themselves with.

Human (or human-like) beings have been around for tens of thousands of years. The first transgender surgery took place barely a century ago. I don't see how one can comport a recently-invented surgical procedure (and resulting movement) to something critical to humanity and human rights.

Perhaps that's what he meant was the "abomination": a greedy (and possibly nefarious) system that exploits vulnerable people. Hey, I'll give anyone the benefit of the doubt once. :wink:

Kirk, and other culture warriors, profit from catering to such people. — praxis

Hmm. While I do not think Kirk ever did this - yes, that's right. So does Kamala, Seder, Maddow, Tiedrich, Reich etc.. etc.. If you want to take that line, I'll bite. But I still conclude you're absolutely wrong and simply projecting your disbelief that someone could in fact, be Charlie Kirk in good faith. That's a shame.

Oh right, Kirk and his followers think trans should exist. What reality are you living in? — praxis

Yes. They do. And he said so plenty of times. You genuinely do not know what hte fuck you're talking about. If you want to be an adult, make a claim in my DMs and I'll take you through why you're wrong about Charlie Kirk. Otherwise, this is pointless. You just make shitty claims and don't back them up.

He used the word in a strictly biblical sense. He did not use it in a moral sense. When you actually listen to what he says, it's pretty fucking hard to misinterpret him as badly as Praxis has (though, i presume he's actually never looked past chopped up clips designed by lefties to make him look as bad as their emotional state requires to avoid embarrassment).

Hmm. While I do not think Kirk ever did this - yes, that's right. So does Kamala, Seder, Maddow, Tiedrich, Reich etc.. etc.. — AmadeusD

Oh good, you do understand what I’m talking about. I can’t help it if you’re unable to see Kirk as a culture warrior. Pretty much everyone else on the planet sees it clearly though, including his supporters—especially his supporters.

make a claim in my DMs — AmadeusD

What does that mean?

What does that mean? — praxis

He thinks this is, or rather, is used to, social media. DM stands for Direct Message, so the kids today say "DM me" which means "send me a private message."

This offer is likely so as to avoid claims or accusations of being "off topic" or "spamming."

He feels you are wrong and also feels he can easily prove it.

This is the lounge and this thread is as dead as the subject of the topic.

Kirk publicly stated—to cheering audiences no less—that people he doesn’t even know are abominations. As I’ve pointed out, this is the epitome of bigotry.

Because of its tribal nature and claims to absolute truth and divine sanction, religion is structurally susceptible to bigotry, so it doesn’t take much for a firebrand like Kirk to stoke the flames of it.

Kirk publicly stated—to cheering audiences no less—that people he doesn’t even know are abominations. — praxis

But he didn’t say that verbatim, therefore he isn’t really a bigoted culture warrior who made millions off of “gotcha” clips debating college kids.