If you're going to make Wittgenstein's argument that language exists only to fulfill a social purpose, then I am happy to engage you on that deeper level, but in doing so we must confront the purpose of the vernacular usage of the word "politics". If it's not a word based on representing some idea of truth, what is it for? As the Hard Drive has correctly pointed out, it's for complaining about minorities in video games. It's for racism. Personally, I think we should call out the use of racist tools, including social tools such as words. If someone complains about politics, we should call them a racist and move on with our lives.
exocrinous
joined 9 months ago
I'm not joking, I'm being 100% serious while using a totally incongruous example to make my point that tons of stuff people refuse to believe is political, is deeply political. My point further reinforced by the fact that you found it difficult to accept that I think Mario is political. People are LLMs, they don't understand the words they're using, they just regurgitate according to probabilistic association models. The word politics is associated probabilistically with seriousness, so people assume silly fun things like Mario can't be political. They don't understand the words they use, they just use heuristics. People aren't sapient creatures, they literally have the same intelligence as chatgpt.
Actually, a cult is defined as a small religion, and as one of the largest religions, anything Christians do is by definition non-cult shit.
"Pretentious" is just a dogwhistle for "neurodivergent". Never worry about being pretentious.
Yo if your gf doesn't get up to mischief and japes then i dunno what to tell you but that sounds kinda boring ngl
Crimes Of The Future
Oh well in that case I prefer overtly political games. Like Mario, which is about rescuing the mushroom kingdom's head of state and driving Bowser's soldiers out of the territory they've occupied. You even lower Bowser's flag at the end of each level.
No, it's the symbol at the bottom
This meme is a dirty joke
Well, that's two religions, which are both part of the same family and are even arguably the same religion. That data doesn't tell us anything about Shintos, Haudenosaunee, Sihks, Maori, Hellenists, Aztecs, realists, pantheists, Buddhists, Celts, or any number of other religions I could name.
The problem is that people go their whole lives where the only religious people they interact with are Abrahamists, so they think Abrahamism is representative of all religions. But that's an extraordinarily sheltered viewpoint, and no good has ever come of dismissing foreign cultures out of hand with no relevant data.
You're changing the subject. While the OP is about christianity, this little subthread is about whether someone can lose their belief in atheism. Nobody in this subthread mentioned christianity until you did, and nobody in this subthread is a christian. I would appreciate some good faith engagement instead of changing the subject to those other guys over there we both hate. You hate em, I hate em, let's get over it and actually have a fruitful discussion.
You're saying you don't believe in a system of atheism. I'm taking this to mean you don't have any beliefs asserting your atheism. So if I accused you of not being an atheist, you wouldn't deny it, right? Cause you don't believe anything about you being an atheist. There are no beliefs you possess for me to challenge if I call you a theist, correct? You'd go along with it or hold a neutral view?