What scares me is that I’ve tried to hook multiple “geekier” teenagers on Linux, and they aren’t interested. Even the math-y ones don’t know the difference between an operating system and a browser. My main computer is Arch with xmonad and it disturbs and confuses them.

We have a lost generation when it comes to computers. Lots of the little geeks that would have been playing around in the registry or learning powershell 15 years ago are so stuck in walled gardens that they don’t even know there’s a world outside of them.

If dating apps worked, they wouldn’t really “work” under capitalism - you’d find someone, cancel the subscription and move on.

The only really exception is if you focus on hookups or polyamory, but het cis women tend to risk a lot more on hookups (at bare minimum pregnancy and side effects related to whatever precautions are being used to prevent it), so they aren’t going to seek them out and they tend to get flooded with low quality messages anyway.

No matter what your age, race, gender, sex, size, you can always find a man willing to put their dick inside your orifices. Grindr works so well because it’s basically just old school cruising culture with extra frills. Match Group uses it’s monopoly to impose a dating culture that doesn’t really match with how het people form relationships.

I prefer sucking dick for free. When guys pay, they get a bit entitled about it and it’s less fun (can’t take a TMJ break).

It’s kinda amazing how many logical contortions and apologetics there are to attempt to justify a “Jesus didn’t have a problem with wealth” position. It’s almost as if wealthy people are really committed to coming up with some reason why they get to be the exception to the rule.

It is clear in context the “impossible” thing made possible through god would be the wealthy man giving up his possessions. Your interpretation makes the entire story completely pointless and irrelevant, and requires so many logical leaps as to be ridiculous.

I mean, look at Mark 6:19-21 too.

Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

Jesus was flatly opposed to wealth. There is no way around this, it is consistent across the gospels (and not just the canon ones.)

Gould’s “non overlapping magisteria.”

People meme about “q!” but it is super helpful to have that extra step, because sometimes your fingers are moving faster than your brain is. That quick switch back-n-forth vim - gcc - ./a.out loop and my probably ADHD mean that vim saying, “hey, remember you haven’t saved this yet” is a godsend.

You are right about the best part about vim - you can work as fast you type.

Not really, from context pretty sure it’s one of those “ex post facto” prophecy things.

This is why people should read books of the Bible and not verse. Random bits out of context are used to imply so much BS.

Now then, I tell you the truth: Three more kings will arise in Persia, and then a fourth, who will be far richer than all the others. When he has gained power by his wealth, he will stir up everyone against the kingdom of Greece. Then a mighty king will arise, who will rule with great power and do as he pleases. After he has arisen, his empire will be broken up and parceled out toward the four winds of heaven. It will not go to his descendants, nor will it have the power he exercised, because his empire will be uprooted and given to others.

The king of the South will become strong, but one of his commanders will become even stronger than he and will rule his own kingdom with great power. After some years, they will become allies. The daughter of the king of the South will go to the king of the North to make an alliance, but she will not retain her power, and he and his power will not last. In those days she will be betrayed, together with her royal escort and her father[ and the one who supported her.

One from her family line will arise to take her place. He will attack the forces of the king of the North and enter his fortress; he will fight against them and be victorious. He will also seize their gods, their metal images and their valuable articles of silver and gold and carry them off to Egypt. For some years he will leave the king of the North alone. Then the king of the North will invade the realm of the king of the South but will retreat to his own country. His sons will prepare for war and assemble a great army, which will sweep on like an irresistible flood and carry the battle as far as his fortress.

None of this is connected to Revelation, which was written centuries later.

Seems like it would be pretty difficult to get a camel through a needle eye. (That “oh he was actually referring to a gate” is modern horseshit apologetics designed for rich Christians to justify having money btw, totally made up.)

And Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How difficult it will be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!” And the disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said to them again, “Children, how difficult it is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.” And they were exceedingly astonished, and said to him, “Then who can be saved?” Jesus looked at them and said, “With man it is impossible, but not with God. For all things are possible with God.” Peter began to say to him, “See, we have left everything and followed you.” Jesus said, “Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands, for my sake and for the gospel, who will not receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions, and in the age to come eternal life. But many who are first will be last, and the last first.”

Mark 10:23-31

Historical Jesus was not on team money and power I don’t think.

isn’t the antichrist supposed to be a nearly impossibly attractive person

Premillennial dispensationalism/rapture theology is a group creative writing exercise with little relevance to the text. The prophecies in Daniel refer to the Greek king Antiochus, which is clear when one reads chapters and not verses (unfortunately uncommon in your typical Protestant church…) Revelation is referring to emperor Nero.

Really, it’s more that folks like Hal Lindsey popularized the concept by traumatizing children in church basements that’s given it the culture cachet.

And as he was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him and asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone. You know the commandments: ‘Do not murder, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.’” And he said to him, “Teacher, all these I have kept from my youth.” And Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, “You lack one thing: go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” Disheartened by the saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.

Mark 10:17-22

Yeah - stuff we consider the canon was essentially wrapped up by about 100 CE.

The gospels were likely individuals taking other written material that was circulating around the time, and making their own little compilation based on the theological points that they wanted to make.

It’s really clear when you read the gospels and know the order. Mark was probably first, Matthew and Luke pull heavily from Mark and share something from something we call “Q” and maybe a “saying source.” Then John was written last.

It’s really clear when you look at the differences between the scene where they go to get Jesus’s body. In Mark - it’s just a guy who tells them Jesus isn’t there. Matthew has an earthquake and an Angel, Luke has two angels, John has Jesus himself say hi. John is where you get the most “divine” Jesus - because it really does seem that at first Jesus was understood as a mortal man speaking for God, but later influences from Greek philosophy and thoughts about “spirit” slowly turned Jesus into God.

Daniel 8 and 11 here are talking about a prophecy that has already “been fulfilled” - common in the Bible to make these kinds of retroactive prophecies. The bad guy being described there is Antiochus.

Yeah - see the thing about the evil trans pedos that totally exist and are kidnapping children to chop their penises off - they just aren’t following the rules for sex with children. It’s gotta be between an adult man and a young girl he can groom and abuse into being a perfect child-wife-slave forever (ever notice the baby voice fundie women like the Duggers tend to have?)

Economically, socially, spirituality (even if you divorce the 45 that groomed you into getting hitched at 18 - Jesus hated divorce!) dependent. Of course, once he takes an interest in that sophomore in the youth ministry, it’s her fault for not putting out enough.

“Do you know any kids who have been married at age 12? I do. And guess what? They’re still married.”

By definition a primary source is not “re-written”.

Then you are ruling out most ancient primary sources. I don’t think you understand ancient or medieval concepts of authorship, or document transmission.

My idea as a transgender man who struggles with mental illness - if I am safe, than health cis men are also safe.

Maybe it’s not “use people as a buffer” but the start fighting now.

I know I am in danger and there is nothing I can do about it. Many cis men can do things now, that would improve my life and help push up against this rising tide of fascism.

They probably won’t come for you (unless you’re very politically vocal) until after they’re done with immigrants, LGBTQ folks, the mentally ill…

So if you don’t want them to come for you, help make sure they don’t get to wrap up those groups first. Maybe advocate on behalf of some of those folks - your voice has more clout.

Which contemporary philosophers demonstrate this supposed shift in thinking?

Post-modernism laid the groundwork for an ‘I have my facts and you have yours’ culture.

I feel like this is a common regressive take. The Right/anti intellectualist movement understood postmodernism as giving them the right to claim that facts don’t matter.

Post modernism itself is a way of interrogating frameworks we take for granted. It’s not saying “facts don’t matter,” it’s saying “how do we know those are facts”? There are valid questions to ask about science as a way of knowing - which epistemological frameworks we take at face value, and if we really can. Lolita is a postmodernist work, because it’s asking you to interrogate what a novel means (in the context of an unreliable narrator - HH is lying to you, but he isn’t real. what does that mean about what is being described in a novel? Is a novel a window into a different universe which has a reality to be described?)

The Right’s unreality is more of a Romantic one - none of those fuckers are reading Derrida or Deleuze. It’s more related to sexual insecurities and the death drive. I’m not a Freudian but I look at anti intellectuals and see deep sexual confusion and fear. If “male” and “female” are permeable categories, how does someone who defines their existence solely by their white masculinity going to police the boundaries of their own identity?

Dont forget the failure of the Business Plot. Which side of the war would those fuckers be on?

(Fun fact: Prescott Bush, Dubya’s grandfather might have been involved too - it’s debatable but the argument against it is that he was too busy with Nazis abroad to be helping them here….)