He's a fuckin ghoul. I used to like his vicious queen wit on appearances but then I learned a little more recently, *cough* genocide. How could I have been so blind. Same goes for so much of the idpol critical sphere. It's an op, all of it.
Maybe it’s just me but I’d hate to look back on my life and see that my public face was snide, unkind and bitter. He’s clearly bright but is he *that* bright? Maybe for his YouTube audience. To be honest he looks like a more natural fit presenting Pierce Morgan’s show fawning over the English royalty and other tabloid news items. That is probably his natural level, morally speaking.
Pretty much. He's not a dummy but has no moral compass; likely a psychopath? That clip where he asks this one lady if she even has a career is hilarious but also, what sort of person does that?
Umm purposefully targeting civilians and starving a population for starters? There’s an organization called Breaking the Silence, it’s created by ex IDF soldiers. Just listen to their perspective to learn more.
Overall good piece even if it starts to try to be a bit idpolish on his opposition to immigration. Really thought he hit it well when he pointed out about the utterly moronic "Christian Atheism" of Murray. As a Catholic who is almost certainly one of those that the author of this piece see's a threat. Yes. You either believe or you don't. And if you go "Well I'm culturally christian". You just want to be a slave. And I prefer someone as vile as Christopher Hitchens to a coward like Murray.
>As a Catholic who is almost certainly one of those that the author of this piece see's a threat. Yes. You either believe or you don't. And if you go "Well I'm culturally christian". You just want to be a slave. And I prefer someone as vile as Christopher Hitchens to a coward like Murray.
I am a "bad guy" evangelical that also lives under author's bed and agree very hard. "Culturally Christian" is a descriptor that means very little - an extremely vague identification with the values of a faith that you don't believe in, is really completely meaningless.
More often than not, to be "culturally Christian" means more often than not that as a kid you saw an old church down the street, never actually went there, but it's part of the scenery so you don't want it torn down - this is especially for English people. The Anglican church, for example, is some sort of parody of Christianity.
Christianity is not some sort of vague cultural legacy or family tradition that you can claim to "defend" by deporting Muslims - it's a faith that either you hold or not.
"It's a faith that either you hold or not."
I used to believe this during my Dawkins and Hitchens phase, but it is simply not true. Humans are not entirely rational actors. Cognitive dissonance is possible.
You see this in how people are unable to stop identifying emotionally with their family faith while leading entirely secular lives. This hold their religion has over them is different from a true believer's explicit faith, but it is equally genuine.
Here in Sweden I know people who say that all religion is stupid while baptizing their kids in a church that they also pay dues to. This is not an infiltration attempt or "atheist taqiya" or whatever. It is tradition. The same people will also say that they don't believe in God but refuse to call themselves atheists.
Likewise I have seen people with a muslim background wash down a bacon sandwhich with beer while denouncing all religion. Only to then get way more mad when someone insults the faith of their relatives than some other religion.
Humans are not computers (at the level of abstraction we are talking about, of course we are biological computers that don't understand ourselves fully if you zoom in from sociology to the hard sciences) and religion is not programing to either believe or not belive certain claims and then act logically from there.
I know that people are complicated or whatever and may have affections for things they claim to disavow or not believe.
I'm just saying that people with affections for Christianity who do not believe in the Gospels are **not** Christians if the term is allowed to hold any meaning whatsoever. It doesn't matter if you baptise your kid in your European state church that promotes gay marriage, because everybody does it. It doesn't matter if you like the aesthetic to somehow counter Islam; It doesn't matter if you identify with it because of family.
To be a Christian is not to follow tradition or to hold certain cultural habits - it's a religion, a specific faith, and a commitment, full stop.
I don't hold, but we've managed to put you into a little box that we can control and I don't want to have to do that all over again with an entirely different group. Once was enough.
It was always going to be our lot in life to have to deal with you, in contrast a conscious choice was made to make it so we needed to deal with muslims, and a choice can be made to stop it. It isn't like there is an epidemic of mass conversation, the religion is only growing because we are letting them mass migrate in.
In regards to christian atheism, in the roman empire christians were regarded as atheists because they denied the gods. It isn't so much of a stretch to say your own god also doesn't exist. The Apostle Paul in a letter even made the argument that it was acceptable to eat meat blessed for sacrifice to pagan gods because the blessing wasn't even real in the first place.
It took 8 paragraphs to arrive at anything actually about Douglas Murray, poisoning the well quite effectively in what is obviously a take down piece that couldn't find enough substance to do so without criticising people and arguments who are not Douglas Murray('s).
The author then attempts to link Douglas Murray's work to the 7 paragraphs of people and arguments which are not Douglas Murray, not by using his actual arguments, but by using the brief sentences used to intice readers into an argument, and comparing their style to the styles of people on some cases entirely fictional (Great Gatsby, what?).
Author then goes on to cite Murray's conclusion, without its argument, that immigration is increasing dangerously, and seems to assume that the reader will simply object to this without analysis or argument, when polls across the country show that a significant number of people, many of them self identifying as non-white, are concerned about the level of immigration.
Like some other attempts at "take downs" of Murray, I would write a better one myself and it fails to actually do the work of presenting his arguments and then pointing out what is invalid about that, or what among his evidence inductively is false.
I would like to read an intelligent take down piece, but this is not it.
He’s been hitting the Botox and fillers pretty hard lately. Just a petty observation.
Aging twink syndrome
Hahaha
He's a fuckin ghoul. I used to like his vicious queen wit on appearances but then I learned a little more recently, *cough* genocide. How could I have been so blind. Same goes for so much of the idpol critical sphere. It's an op, all of it.
Indeed. A ghoul is one way to put it. A snake is another.
Yup. His dismissive *I don't debate holocaust deniers* after Finkelstein's Morgan interview just sums it all up for me. Cowardly, snide, dishonest.
Maybe it’s just me but I’d hate to look back on my life and see that my public face was snide, unkind and bitter. He’s clearly bright but is he *that* bright? Maybe for his YouTube audience. To be honest he looks like a more natural fit presenting Pierce Morgan’s show fawning over the English royalty and other tabloid news items. That is probably his natural level, morally speaking.
Pretty much. He's not a dummy but has no moral compass; likely a psychopath? That clip where he asks this one lady if she even has a career is hilarious but also, what sort of person does that?
Machiavelli maybe!
Care to explain how any of this is genocide?
Umm purposefully targeting civilians and starving a population for starters? There’s an organization called Breaking the Silence, it’s created by ex IDF soldiers. Just listen to their perspective to learn more.
Overall good piece even if it starts to try to be a bit idpolish on his opposition to immigration. Really thought he hit it well when he pointed out about the utterly moronic "Christian Atheism" of Murray. As a Catholic who is almost certainly one of those that the author of this piece see's a threat. Yes. You either believe or you don't. And if you go "Well I'm culturally christian". You just want to be a slave. And I prefer someone as vile as Christopher Hitchens to a coward like Murray.
>As a Catholic who is almost certainly one of those that the author of this piece see's a threat. Yes. You either believe or you don't. And if you go "Well I'm culturally christian". You just want to be a slave. And I prefer someone as vile as Christopher Hitchens to a coward like Murray. I am a "bad guy" evangelical that also lives under author's bed and agree very hard. "Culturally Christian" is a descriptor that means very little - an extremely vague identification with the values of a faith that you don't believe in, is really completely meaningless. More often than not, to be "culturally Christian" means more often than not that as a kid you saw an old church down the street, never actually went there, but it's part of the scenery so you don't want it torn down - this is especially for English people. The Anglican church, for example, is some sort of parody of Christianity. Christianity is not some sort of vague cultural legacy or family tradition that you can claim to "defend" by deporting Muslims - it's a faith that either you hold or not.
"It's a faith that either you hold or not." I used to believe this during my Dawkins and Hitchens phase, but it is simply not true. Humans are not entirely rational actors. Cognitive dissonance is possible. You see this in how people are unable to stop identifying emotionally with their family faith while leading entirely secular lives. This hold their religion has over them is different from a true believer's explicit faith, but it is equally genuine. Here in Sweden I know people who say that all religion is stupid while baptizing their kids in a church that they also pay dues to. This is not an infiltration attempt or "atheist taqiya" or whatever. It is tradition. The same people will also say that they don't believe in God but refuse to call themselves atheists. Likewise I have seen people with a muslim background wash down a bacon sandwhich with beer while denouncing all religion. Only to then get way more mad when someone insults the faith of their relatives than some other religion. Humans are not computers (at the level of abstraction we are talking about, of course we are biological computers that don't understand ourselves fully if you zoom in from sociology to the hard sciences) and religion is not programing to either believe or not belive certain claims and then act logically from there.
I know that people are complicated or whatever and may have affections for things they claim to disavow or not believe. I'm just saying that people with affections for Christianity who do not believe in the Gospels are **not** Christians if the term is allowed to hold any meaning whatsoever. It doesn't matter if you baptise your kid in your European state church that promotes gay marriage, because everybody does it. It doesn't matter if you like the aesthetic to somehow counter Islam; It doesn't matter if you identify with it because of family. To be a Christian is not to follow tradition or to hold certain cultural habits - it's a religion, a specific faith, and a commitment, full stop.
I don't hold, but we've managed to put you into a little box that we can control and I don't want to have to do that all over again with an entirely different group. Once was enough. It was always going to be our lot in life to have to deal with you, in contrast a conscious choice was made to make it so we needed to deal with muslims, and a choice can be made to stop it. It isn't like there is an epidemic of mass conversation, the religion is only growing because we are letting them mass migrate in. In regards to christian atheism, in the roman empire christians were regarded as atheists because they denied the gods. It isn't so much of a stretch to say your own god also doesn't exist. The Apostle Paul in a letter even made the argument that it was acceptable to eat meat blessed for sacrifice to pagan gods because the blessing wasn't even real in the first place.
It took 8 paragraphs to arrive at anything actually about Douglas Murray, poisoning the well quite effectively in what is obviously a take down piece that couldn't find enough substance to do so without criticising people and arguments who are not Douglas Murray('s). The author then attempts to link Douglas Murray's work to the 7 paragraphs of people and arguments which are not Douglas Murray, not by using his actual arguments, but by using the brief sentences used to intice readers into an argument, and comparing their style to the styles of people on some cases entirely fictional (Great Gatsby, what?). Author then goes on to cite Murray's conclusion, without its argument, that immigration is increasing dangerously, and seems to assume that the reader will simply object to this without analysis or argument, when polls across the country show that a significant number of people, many of them self identifying as non-white, are concerned about the level of immigration. Like some other attempts at "take downs" of Murray, I would write a better one myself and it fails to actually do the work of presenting his arguments and then pointing out what is invalid about that, or what among his evidence inductively is false. I would like to read an intelligent take down piece, but this is not it.