Imagine if Christians actually had to live according to their Bibles.
"If they start canceling these American presidents, they're gonna come after Bible characters next. Mark my words" -- Fox News "news side" host Bill Hemmer pic.twitter.com/qTPV0NERv8
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) February 19, 2021
Imagine if they relentlessly stood up for the widow, the orphan, and the foreigner.
Imagine if they worshipped a God whose response to political power was to reject it.
Or cancelled all debt owed them?
Imagine Christians with no interest in protecting what they had.
Imagine Christians who made room for other beliefs, and honored the truths they found there.
Whose empathy went first to the abused, not the abuser.
Who didn't see tax as theft; who didn't need to control distribution of public good to the deserving.
Imagine Christians who didn't worry about money at all.
Imagine Christians who saw wealth as a barrier to heaven, not a proof of their election to it.
Imagine Christians who saved their anger for injustice.
Imagine Christians who believed that the lesson of their book was to identify with enslaved people, not their enslavers.
Imagine them finally seeing that the Bible is actually filled with words of condemnation, but only for exactly the people they most resemble.
I imagine they'd feel cancelled.
More from A.R. (Actually Republic) Moxon
If you ever want to consider how committed our society is to the foundational lie that life must be earned, and those who fail to earn it must die, consider that the proposition “giving everyone money to spend would be bad for the economy” is widely accepted as truth.
“Giving money to people in poverty solves poverty” is an obvious truth, which needs (another) study for proof, for the same reason that this finding will be ignored (again).
We don’t want to fix poverty, even if doing so helps everyone—not if it means life for the “undeserving.”
It’s not about saving money.
There's a great fear in this country that a single dollar might go to someone who might not deserve it; or that a single given dollar might be spent on something we deem unworthy.
We'll spend five dollars to prevent the waste of that one dollar.
The manifestations are everywhere. From the overt, gleefully cruel hostility of conservatism toward people in poverty, of course. But also hidden in almost everyone's assumptions.
Our use of charity as a way of controlling who gets helped, for example.
Even the reversal—a desire to prevent aid from going to "undeserving" wealthy who don't need it (true)—leads us to create obstacles to aid people in poverty often can't overcome, but wealthy people can.
Which is why wealthy people like means
A new study found that giving low-income workers money upfront in their work period helped alleviate the mental burden of their financial problems and allowed them to be more productive \u2014 echoing other findings on the psychological impacts of poverty.https://t.co/zdxItTLDLZ
— NPR (@NPR) February 3, 2021
“Giving money to people in poverty solves poverty” is an obvious truth, which needs (another) study for proof, for the same reason that this finding will be ignored (again).
We don’t want to fix poverty, even if doing so helps everyone—not if it means life for the “undeserving.”
It’s not about saving money.
There's a great fear in this country that a single dollar might go to someone who might not deserve it; or that a single given dollar might be spent on something we deem unworthy.
We'll spend five dollars to prevent the waste of that one dollar.
The manifestations are everywhere. From the overt, gleefully cruel hostility of conservatism toward people in poverty, of course. But also hidden in almost everyone's assumptions.
Our use of charity as a way of controlling who gets helped, for example.
Charity isn't primarily an act.
— A.R. Moxon (@JuliusGoat) November 10, 2019
Before the act comes an alignment.
Charity is the natural fruit of a deep alignment with the virtue of generosity.
It sure shouldn't be a delivery mechanism for one's own beliefs about worthiness.
Even the reversal—a desire to prevent aid from going to "undeserving" wealthy who don't need it (true)—leads us to create obstacles to aid people in poverty often can't overcome, but wealthy people can.
Which is why wealthy people like means
Whenever someone proposes a means-testing solution, it's an indication they've internalized the lie, foundational to the United States, that some people deserve life and others don't.
— A.R. Moxon (@JuliusGoat) December 18, 2020
It's an expensive lie.
People have wondered why I have spent 3 days mostly pushing back on this idea that "defund the police" is bad marketing.
The reason is, it's an example of this magic trick, the oldest trick in the book.
It's a competition between what I call compass statements. And it matters.
There are a lot of people who think "defund the police" is a bad slogan.
But it's a directional intention. A compass statement.
The real effect of calling it a bad slogan, whether or not intentional (but usually intentional), is to reduce a compass statement down to a slogan.
Whenever there is a real problem and a clear solution, there will be people who benefit from the problem and therefore oppose the solution in a variety of ways.
And this is true of any real problem, not just the problem of lawless militarized white supremacist police.
There are people who oppose it directly using a wide variety of tactics, one of which is misconstruing anything—quite literally anything—said by those who propose solutions—any solutions.
They'd appreciate it if you mistake their deliberate misrepresentation for confusion.
The reason they'd appreciate if if you mistake their deliberate misrepresentation for confusion is, it wastes time that could have been spend on the solution trying to persuade them, with different arguments and metaphors or solutions.
Which they intend to misconstrue.
The reason is, it's an example of this magic trick, the oldest trick in the book.
It's a competition between what I call compass statements. And it matters.
There\u2019s a magic trick that\u2019s going to get played on us every day during the 2020 election cycle. It\u2019s a fairly simple trick, once you see it.
— A.R. Moxon (@JuliusGoat) February 17, 2019
I\u2019d like to talk about leadership and governance.
And the compass, the navigation, the travel, and the corrections.
(thread)
There are a lot of people who think "defund the police" is a bad slogan.
But it's a directional intention. A compass statement.
The real effect of calling it a bad slogan, whether or not intentional (but usually intentional), is to reduce a compass statement down to a slogan.
Whenever there is a real problem and a clear solution, there will be people who benefit from the problem and therefore oppose the solution in a variety of ways.
And this is true of any real problem, not just the problem of lawless militarized white supremacist police.
There are people who oppose it directly using a wide variety of tactics, one of which is misconstruing anything—quite literally anything—said by those who propose solutions—any solutions.
They'd appreciate it if you mistake their deliberate misrepresentation for confusion.
The reason they'd appreciate if if you mistake their deliberate misrepresentation for confusion is, it wastes time that could have been spend on the solution trying to persuade them, with different arguments and metaphors or solutions.
Which they intend to misconstrue.
Observe: the lie that "government" is a monolithic entity, from which we are somehow separate.
Government is how we organize, manage and maintain our society, but to acknowledge that is to acknowledge society, and one's responsibility to organize, manage, and maintain it.
Government didn't close churches. Churches closed because people with something more than a childishly selfish view of the world understood their responsibility to the shared life of a society, and government is how that understanding was operationalized and delivered.
Nor does government militarize police. The police is militarized because people with a fearful, hateful or selfish view of the world understand a militarized police will operationalize & deliver that fear, hate, and greed through the mechanism of government.
Government is *us*.
Those who now align with a party actively working to dissolve and demolish democracy in our country do so not because they don't understand this, but because they do.
Democracy allows people they fear and hate to be government with them.
So they hate democracy, and government.
People who align with a party standing in the way of any solution, any maintenance, any governance, do so not because they don't understand this, but because they do.
Better to die of sickness, disease, and neglect than allow those they hate and fear to be government with them.
Government is how we organize, manage and maintain our society, but to acknowledge that is to acknowledge society, and one's responsibility to organize, manage, and maintain it.
#COVID19 didn\u2019t close churches. Government did.
— Rep. Jim Jordan (@Jim_Jordan) December 28, 2020
Government didn't close churches. Churches closed because people with something more than a childishly selfish view of the world understood their responsibility to the shared life of a society, and government is how that understanding was operationalized and delivered.
Nor does government militarize police. The police is militarized because people with a fearful, hateful or selfish view of the world understand a militarized police will operationalize & deliver that fear, hate, and greed through the mechanism of government.
Government is *us*.
Those who now align with a party actively working to dissolve and demolish democracy in our country do so not because they don't understand this, but because they do.
Democracy allows people they fear and hate to be government with them.
So they hate democracy, and government.
People who align with a party standing in the way of any solution, any maintenance, any governance, do so not because they don't understand this, but because they do.
Better to die of sickness, disease, and neglect than allow those they hate and fear to be government with them.
More from Society
I’ll address every nonsense argument and lie used to defend the suicidal gender ideology Thats in vogue today:
3:45 - “So what if you don’t have gametes?”
It’s called a birth defect. You’re still male or female.
~5:00 *nonsense trying to say the sexes of seahorses could be swapped coz male carry the eggs*
male doesn’t produce eggs, he produces the sperm. He’s still the male. If I impregnated a chick then carried the amniotic sac in a backpack ‘til the baby was done I’ll still be male🤦♂️
5:10 - we could say there’s 4 sexes of fruit fly cause there’s 3 producers of different sized sperm
No. They’re still producing sperm. They’re males. This is idiotic. Is this whole video like this? (Probably. 99% likely. Abandon hope.)
~6:10 - hermaphroditism and sequential hermaphroditism exists therefore....
No. Some animals being hermaphrodites, which is meaningless w/o the existence of binary sex to contrast it to, still doesn’t make gender ideology or transgenderism valid.
Intersex ≠ transgenderism 🙄
6:20 - bilateral gynandromorphism is a disorder in some species (not in humans). Has nothing to do w/ “gender” or transgenderism.
Ova-testes in humans are also a disorder, usually found in those w/ the karyotype disorders that you ppl also try to appropriate (extra X’s/Y’s).
3:45 - “So what if you don’t have gametes?”
It’s called a birth defect. You’re still male or female.
*one horrible doctor does a horrible thing* "oh I guess gender is horrible" miss me with that transphobic nonsense
— Goob \u26a1 (@Goob999) February 17, 2021
Here's a video to even disprove your take on sex (not gender) and the binary:https://t.co/bpmqqJWoJX
~5:00 *nonsense trying to say the sexes of seahorses could be swapped coz male carry the eggs*
male doesn’t produce eggs, he produces the sperm. He’s still the male. If I impregnated a chick then carried the amniotic sac in a backpack ‘til the baby was done I’ll still be male🤦♂️
5:10 - we could say there’s 4 sexes of fruit fly cause there’s 3 producers of different sized sperm
No. They’re still producing sperm. They’re males. This is idiotic. Is this whole video like this? (Probably. 99% likely. Abandon hope.)
~6:10 - hermaphroditism and sequential hermaphroditism exists therefore....
No. Some animals being hermaphrodites, which is meaningless w/o the existence of binary sex to contrast it to, still doesn’t make gender ideology or transgenderism valid.
Intersex ≠ transgenderism 🙄
6:20 - bilateral gynandromorphism is a disorder in some species (not in humans). Has nothing to do w/ “gender” or transgenderism.
Ova-testes in humans are also a disorder, usually found in those w/ the karyotype disorders that you ppl also try to appropriate (extra X’s/Y’s).
You May Also Like
The first area to focus on is diversity. This has become a dogma in the tech world, and despite the fact that tech is one of the most meritocratic industries in the world, there are constant efforts to promote diversity at the expense of fairness, merit and competency. Examples:
USC's Interactive Media & Games Division cancels all-star panel that included top-tier game developers who were invited to share their experiences with students. Why? Because there were no women on the
ElectronConf is a conf which chooses presenters based on blind auditions; the identity, gender, and race of the speaker is not known to the selection team. The results of that merit-based approach was an all-male panel. So they cancelled the conference.
Apple's head of diversity (a black woman) got in trouble for promoting a vision of diversity that is at odds with contemporary progressive dogma. (She left the company shortly after this
Also in the name of diversity, there is unabashed discrimination against men (especially white men) in tech, in both hiring policies and in other arenas. One such example is this, a developer workshop that specifically excluded men: https://t.co/N0SkH4hR35
USC's Interactive Media & Games Division cancels all-star panel that included top-tier game developers who were invited to share their experiences with students. Why? Because there were no women on the
ElectronConf is a conf which chooses presenters based on blind auditions; the identity, gender, and race of the speaker is not known to the selection team. The results of that merit-based approach was an all-male panel. So they cancelled the conference.
Apple's head of diversity (a black woman) got in trouble for promoting a vision of diversity that is at odds with contemporary progressive dogma. (She left the company shortly after this
Also in the name of diversity, there is unabashed discrimination against men (especially white men) in tech, in both hiring policies and in other arenas. One such example is this, a developer workshop that specifically excluded men: https://t.co/N0SkH4hR35