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.
Pundits: The fact that Ossoff and Warnock are unlikely to both win their elections means Joe Biden needs to court Republican votes rather than push a much-needed progressive agenda
*Ossoff and Warnock win handily*
Pundits: Ah. Nevertheless,
The only way political reporting in this country makes sense is if you understand that the almost universal, almost subconscious default assumption: that conservative white people are the protagonists of any story that's being told, no matter the facts of the story.
Just do the obvious and necessary good things and let the horrid evil people who hate good things squeal and cry about it forever.
I really need Democrats who will state the clear and obvious truth, which is that Republicans are our enemies, because they insist on attacking the very idea of a shared society and are more than happy to use violence to do it, which is the very definition of an enemy.
You can't make people who want to kill you not be your enemies even if you wish they'd be your friend.
They can stop trying to kill you, but until that happens they are your enemy, and acknowledging that fact isn't what makes that fact true.
*Ossoff and Warnock win handily*
Pundits: Ah. Nevertheless,
Congressional Republicans balk at Joe Biden\u2019s $1.9 trillion relief plan, complicating push for quick passage https://t.co/npXogXvBHM
— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) January 15, 2021
The only way political reporting in this country makes sense is if you understand that the almost universal, almost subconscious default assumption: that conservative white people are the protagonists of any story that's being told, no matter the facts of the story.
Just do the obvious and necessary good things and let the horrid evil people who hate good things squeal and cry about it forever.
I really need Democrats who will state the clear and obvious truth, which is that Republicans are our enemies, because they insist on attacking the very idea of a shared society and are more than happy to use violence to do it, which is the very definition of an enemy.
You can't make people who want to kill you not be your enemies even if you wish they'd be your friend.
They can stop trying to kill you, but until that happens they are your enemy, and acknowledging that fact isn't what makes that fact true.
More from Society
You May Also Like
A THREAD ON @SarangSood
Decoded his way of analysis/logics for everyone to easily understand.
Have covered:
1. Analysis of volatility, how to foresee/signs.
2. Workbook
3. When to sell options
4. Diff category of days
5. How movement of option prices tell us what will happen
1. Keeps following volatility super closely.
Makes 7-8 different strategies to give him a sense of what's going on.
Whichever gives highest profit he trades in.
2. Theta falls when market moves.
Falls where market is headed towards not on our original position.
3. If you're an options seller then sell only when volatility is dropping, there is a high probability of you making the right trade and getting profit as a result
He believes in a market operator, if market mover sells volatility Sarang Sir joins him.
4. Theta decay vs Fall in vega
Sell when Vega is falling rather than for theta decay. You won't be trapped and higher probability of making profit.
Decoded his way of analysis/logics for everyone to easily understand.
Have covered:
1. Analysis of volatility, how to foresee/signs.
2. Workbook
3. When to sell options
4. Diff category of days
5. How movement of option prices tell us what will happen
1. Keeps following volatility super closely.
Makes 7-8 different strategies to give him a sense of what's going on.
Whichever gives highest profit he trades in.
I am quite different from your style. I follow the market's volatility very closely. I have mock positions in 7-8 different strategies which allows me to stay connected. Whichever gives best profit is usually the one i trade in.
— Sarang Sood (@SarangSood) August 13, 2019
2. Theta falls when market moves.
Falls where market is headed towards not on our original position.
Anilji most of the time these days Theta only falls when market moves. So the Theta actually falls where market has moved to, not where our position was in the first place. By shifting we can come close to capturing the Theta fall but not always.
— Sarang Sood (@SarangSood) June 24, 2019
3. If you're an options seller then sell only when volatility is dropping, there is a high probability of you making the right trade and getting profit as a result
He believes in a market operator, if market mover sells volatility Sarang Sir joins him.
This week has been great so far. The main aim is to be in the right side of the volatility, rest the market will reward.
— Sarang Sood (@SarangSood) July 3, 2019
4. Theta decay vs Fall in vega
Sell when Vega is falling rather than for theta decay. You won't be trapped and higher probability of making profit.
There is a difference between theta decay & fall in vega. Decay is certain but there is no guaranteed profit as delta moves can increase cost. Fall in vega on the other hand is backed by a powerful force that sells options and gives handsome returns. Our job is to identify them.
— Sarang Sood (@SarangSood) February 12, 2020
Krugman is, of course, right about this. BUT, note that universities can do a lot to revitalize declining and rural regions.
See this thing that @lymanstoneky wrote:
And see this thing that I wrote:
And see this book that @JamesFallows wrote:
And see this other thing that I wrote:
One thing I've been noticing about responses to today's column is that many people still don't get how strong the forces behind regional divergence are, and how hard to reverse 1/ https://t.co/Ft2aH1NcQt
— Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) November 20, 2018
See this thing that @lymanstoneky wrote:
And see this thing that I wrote:
And see this book that @JamesFallows wrote:
And see this other thing that I wrote: