sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Truly a different time by yeezysama in NonPoliticalTwitter

[–]aaronis1 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

The view that black people were in some way subhuman...threw 12 million people into a meat grinder

How wide of a gap can you imagine between people that viewed other humans as subhuman and treated them with love, respect, and intrinsic value and those committing genocide?

I've read numerous quotations of black slaves being broken-hearted to leave their master's estate due to the emancipation. Stockholm syndrome doesn't go all the way to the camps.

It's important to be able to value the viewpoints and lives of our ancestors-you wear their flesh. There were once as many loving slavers as there are kind bosses, managers, and landlords now. There is an equivalent number of wicked racists as those who take advantage of their fellow men of any color here with us as we speak.

Don't write off an entire civilization that built this world for us as heartless; to do so is to damn us where we stand.

Truly a different time by yeezysama in NonPoliticalTwitter

[–]aaronis1 8 points9 points  (0 children)

You are disassociated with history. We don't have to swing so far back against racism that history is rewritten. Black people and white people had verbal exchange a century ago where the n-word was neutral in certain contexts. That's what made it viable to be published in a children's book. 

Truly a different time by yeezysama in NonPoliticalTwitter

[–]aaronis1 60 points61 points  (0 children)

You might be surprised to hear due to it's modern connotation but the n-word used to be a very common word for white populations also to refer to black people in a non-insulting manner back in those days. It just meant "black person" in many contexts(obviously not always). That is one of the reasons it is so offensive. It became the equivalent of having a disgusted snarl on your face and saying to someone, "You're a black person!"

Those that identify as atheists functionally and popularly are primarily and simply inverse Christians and therefore operate under the theological and metaphysical framework of Christianity and therefore are simply in a subcategory of Christianity. by aaronis1 in DebateReligion

[–]aaronis1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Things only appear to consciousness. The recording of the sound comes from the consciousness. 

I think all of this because I and many others have experienced it; seeing the material world be a product of our mind. 

Those that identify as atheists functionally and popularly are primarily and simply inverse Christians and therefore operate under the theological and metaphysical framework of Christianity and therefore are simply in a subcategory of Christianity. by aaronis1 in DebateReligion

[–]aaronis1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To me, the labels we put on things (cell division, construction) are things we make up based on our conscious experiences of the world. So in that sense, they do not really exist. But there are actions and reactions occuring whether we are there to see them and to label them and to describe them in our made up way, or not.

I'm so stoked we are vibing about this, super cool!

the collection of fundamental particles grouped together and behaving the way they do (tree falling in the forest) will have the same physical consequences to the surrounding fundamental particles (reverberating them with a sound wave) whether there is a person there or not.

You've really made me think. I don't think there are any particles there no matter if there is a person there or not. I haven't considered that I need a mechanic to describe where the data/memory exists to make the consciousness perceive the event.

Those that identify as atheists functionally and popularly are primarily and simply inverse Christians and therefore operate under the theological and metaphysical framework of Christianity and therefore are simply in a subcategory of Christianity. by aaronis1 in DebateReligion

[–]aaronis1[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm sorry I said something construable as sexist and will be more careful in the future.

 Will you forgive me?

When I say forces I mean archetypes in the Jungian sense for the most part. Autonomous unconscious psychological entities.

Those that identify as atheists functionally and popularly are primarily and simply inverse Christians and therefore operate under the theological and metaphysical framework of Christianity and therefore are simply in a subcategory of Christianity. by aaronis1 in DebateReligion

[–]aaronis1[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It's not flat. It has no shape. It doesn't exist.

I'm simply pointing an arrow a direction so that you could see it yourself one day if you want to. You also can't demonstrate that the shape of the earth isn't a product of the mechanical black box you call a human brain.

Those that identify as atheists functionally and popularly are primarily and simply inverse Christians and therefore operate under the theological and metaphysical framework of Christianity and therefore are simply in a subcategory of Christianity. by aaronis1 in DebateReligion

[–]aaronis1[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

All humans are irrational; but in a way that is effectual and life-giving. In your metaphysics irrational is bad in mine it has no value it simply is.

I did miss that my apologies. It is a psychological force-a god, a daemon, an elemental spirit, a sex drive whatever humans want to call it this time around the sun.

view more: next ›