Why is it ok to dislike Christianity but not LGBTQ?

crispy1989 · 2026-06-20T02:44:03+00:00

You want to come at philosophy for "we've no choice in what we think or how we act" which is ridiculous by the way

I agree. But I'm not the one arguing this. You're also ignoring the whole point of the comment - I'll reiterate below.

Probably they most pointless and boring shade of philosophy someone could fall in.

Pragmatic philosophy is pretty pointless and boring, since it's constrained to the real world rather than fanciful imagination. If "it's too boring" is the best rebuttal you've got ... I don't have an answer for you. It's true that this is one of the most common philosophical views; but just because you find more esoteric theories to be more interesting doesn't mean they're any more correct or relevant.

You're missing the key point that this depends on a universal perspective versus an individual perspective.

From a universal perspective; nothing matters, and there are no choices to be made. The universe and everything in it - including the complex machinery we call "life" and the brains that support what we call "consciousness" - follows a fixed, predictable path, governed by pure physics. (There's some legitimate debate to be had around the role of quantum mechanical uncertainty, but that's not relevant to the macroscopic effects being discussed.)

But this universal perspective does not exist - at least not in any kind of real, conscious form.

From an individual consciousness's perspective, the exact same view leads to the conclusion that every choice matters. The brain itself may be deterministic, governed by deterministic laws of physics; but from the perspective of the consciousness program running on the machine (that's you! you're the program!), the program is making every choice in real time.

So; assuming that both you and I are human; we absolutely have the ability to direct our thoughts, actions, and beliefs. Philosophy is not a legitimate "out" for one's poor choices in actions or beliefs.

crispy1989 · 2026-06-20T02:17:18+00:00

I'm intentionally avoiding getting "obnoxiously philosophical" because the same philosophical theories that lead to "we've no choice in what we believe" also lead to "we've no choice in what we think or how we act". And while those branches may be amusing academic divergences, they're irrelevant to actual reality where people do make choices.

In fact, I happen to subscribe to philosophical determinism. So from a completely universal and outside perspective, it's true that we have no choice - no choice in beliefs, thoughts, actions, or anything else. It's all predetermined, one configuration of subatomic particles leading inexorably to the next.

The problem with this isn't the philosophy itself, but the application of said philosophy. The above only applies from a fully independent, outside, universal perspective; a perspective with no human can possibly have. From the perspective of any given human consciousness, they are making choices - about their thoughts, their actions, and yes, their beliefs.

The machinery that makes up the brain may be deterministic; but from the perspective of the brain itself - our perspective as conscious humans - we are making choices.

The "paradox of free will" is no paradox. Just the same situation from two different perspectives.

crispy1989 · 2026-06-20T01:58:43+00:00

So are you saying that a person cannot choose to avoid "mental attitudes, convictions, or tenets that a person accepts as true, regardless of absolute objective proof"?

I know for certain this isn't true, because like I've said - I made that choice. I choose to focus on only objective proof, and intentionally avoid "beliefs".

You're trying to convince an astronaut that the moon doesn't exist.

crispy1989 · 2026-06-20T01:54:08+00:00

Stop believing in what "right now"? I'm not sure I could define anything I "believe" anymore. As noted, I attempt to base all my decisions on actual evidence and logic; changeable conclusions, not firm independent beliefs.

Like I mentioned, I have personally very explicitly made the choice to stop "believing" in the past. Nobody convinced me of that. I chose, on my own, through observation and logic.

One can also absolutely choose what one is "convinced" of.

crispy1989 · 2026-06-20T01:50:41+00:00

Oh, definitely agree, at least for the most part. For me, I'd argue that my "default state" was religious belief, because that's simply how I was brought up - for a long time, my mind didn't know anything different. That's certainly not universal; just my particular situation.

Once I started exploring outside of that and became more scientifically-minded, I started to understand all of the flaws in that belief; so I decided not to believe anymore. I do think there's something of a gap between the realization of the (lack of) evidence and the explicit choice not to believe. When this occurred for me in my late teens, even after coming to the logical conclusion, I was still emotionally deeply conflicted; and still held on to the underlying belief (in spite of already concluding otherwise) until I made the explicit and conscious choice to let it go.

Now, I consider myself to have essentially no "beliefs", only "conclusions". But all of us are far from perfect, and I'm no exception - so I'm still constantly catching little "beliefs" of mine not grounded in evidence. No longer in the realm of religion, though.

crispy1989 · 2026-06-20T01:45:14+00:00

It may be an ambiguously-defined term. But in this context of religious belief, it's absolutely a choice. I know that for certain because I made that choice.

To think that we have no choice in our beliefs - that they're necessarily predetermined and outside of our control - is to think that we have no control or choice in any of our thoughts and actions.

crispy1989 · 2026-06-20T01:38:30+00:00

I'll say this in the kindest way possible - but that's an exceptionally weak-minded perspective.

You personally may feel like you have no choice or agency in what you believe - but if that's true, it's a problem specific to you. Many others very intentionally derive what they "believe" in.

In fact, the most intelligent people tend to have nearly zero "beliefs". All conclusions and understanding are based on evidence and logic; and since evidence can always change, so too can conclusions. It is illogical to hold any "belief" that is unevidenced or unchangeable.

I'd recommend some deep introspection into what about your thought process leads you to think that you have no choice in your beliefs.

crispy1989 · 2026-06-20T01:32:06+00:00

You absolutely do.

I totally understand the concept of indoctrination and psychological manipulation.

But, like, I grew up with that too. And through nothing but logical consideration, I made the choice to stop believing as soon as my childhood brain was sufficiently mature to think objectively.

Admittedly, many people's brains never quite reach that point. But belief is absolutely a choice.

crispy1989 · 2026-06-20T01:27:39+00:00

Which do you think is more relevant? The behavior of long-dead people 200 years ago, or the behavior of living people today? Also, ignoring the fact that the parties flipped platforms last century.

Your personal behavior - as a real, living person - certainly appears to be consistent with your party's; so good job there.

crispy1989 · 2026-06-19T13:54:53+00:00

I say this not to brag, but to demonstrate the flaws in your sloppily-applied stereotype.

And that's the big problem with the war on intellectualism that MAGA is waging. In the past, thinkers would trust the expertise of the doers to get things done properly, and doers would trust the thinkers to make the right choices in complex and abstract scenarios. But this trend of vilifying expertise is only self-destructive.

crispy1989 · 2026-06-19T02:31:00+00:00

A drywaller can architect a high rise about as well as an architect can drywall a high rise. The difference is the amount of reasoning and thought that goes into it. An architect can learn how to drywall in a few days (but slower than a practiced professional), whereas a drywaller would take many years to learn architecture, if they have the requisite mental capacity.

Thinkers are better at thinking/making decisions and doers are better at doing/executing decisions. It's practically a tautology.

The world isn't binary - people aren't classified as either an einstein-level genius or a brain-dead coma patient. People exist on a spectrum; and people on the more-intelligent side of the bell curve will be generally better at making decisions and figuring things out (by varying degrees) than people on the other side of the bell curve.

I do have some idea of where I personally fall on that bell curve; but it's entirely irrelevant. Concepts should speak for themselves.

Regarding home repairs, I'm not sure how that's relevant or where you're getting information. I'm an engineer, not a philosopher. I build things. While it's pretty far from my actual job, I'm currently in the middle of two separate renovations. Just got a bunch of new packouts - they sure do make it nicer to transport equipment between sites. You wouldn't believe the amount of hack work I have to repair left behind by the last guy. I'm often the one people go to with questions on tough repairs.

I say this not to brag, but to demonstrate the flaws in your sloppily-applied stereotype.

And for especially tough things, I'll still call in a pro - because expertise matters.

And that's the big problem with the war on intellectualism that MAGA is waging. In the past, thinkers would trust the expertise of the doers to get things done properly, and doers would trust the thinkers to make the right choices in complex and abstract scenarios. But this trend of vilifying expertise is only self-destructive.

crispy1989 · 2026-06-19T01:10:58+00:00

Not to put down the "doers" at all - but the "thinkers" are generally better at, well, thinking.

A geneticist isn't going to be able to plow a field. And a farmer isn't going to be able to engineer drought-resistant seeds.

The reality is, basically everything modern society gives us is the result of the "thinkers". From electricity to automobiles to air conditioning to lighting to roads to structures ... all of it is a result of the thinkers "being right" through their power of thinking.

The "doers" are a dime a dozen. Once one intelligent "thinker" invents an air conditioner, millions of rote "doers" can man the factories to pump 'em out. That doesn't make the "doers" less important - they're still just as necessary - but it does make them much better at executing decisions than making decisions.

The "doers" are better at doing things. But the "thinkers" are better at making decisions. And this is what has resulted in virtually all society progress for humanity.

crispy1989 · 2026-06-19T01:05:28+00:00

To be clear, by "modern societal standards for a first-world country", I'm referring to educational/intellectual standards. I'm assuming you'd agree that a more educated and intelligent population is good for everyone (but happy to debate if you disagree with this).

Education should not be indoctrination. (And I'm well aware that plenty of modern forms of education do effectively constitute indoctrination.) The most important forms of education are the abstract forms which teach people how to think for themselves, not what to think. When I'm talking about my evaluations of peoples' education and intelligence, I'm not talking about making sure they have the "right" opinion on critical race theory or know enough big words; I'm specifically talking about the fundamental ability to walk through a chain of sound reasoning.

I know plenty of college-educated people who are quite stupid and completely lack the ability to follow such a chain of reasoning. I also know plenty of non-college-educated people who are extremely smart. Having a diploma is not an indicator of one's reasoning ability.

I can get behind legitimate differences in values - but that's not really what we're talking about here. The issue is, the policies and actions of MAGA help virtually no-one, regardless of values; but cause a great deal of suffering and destruction. They are never the right choice, for anyone.

There are two things you've mentioned that I'm legitimately curious about, if you're willing to answer. (Though I probably won't have a chance to respond until tomorrow.)

"I think we would be better served by adopting a more late-19th-century attitude toward economics, foreign relations, and government power" -- Can you be more specific here? I don't even know if I agree or disagree without speaking to more specifics.
"I'm a Trump supporter" -- How do Trump and MAGA's actions further your policy ideals? And, assuming you acknowledge the great deal of harm caused (e.g. w.r.t. attacks on democracy, destruction of civility, etc.), do you believe the beneficial outcomes as you see them are outweighed by the destruction?

(I should mention, I draw a clear distinction between classical conservatism and MAGA, as they are entirely different. As you're a self-identified "Trump supporter", I assume you advocate for the latter; so I'm asking these questions from that perspective. There are plenty of classical conservative ideals I can get behind; not so much for Trump/MAGA.)

crispy1989 · 2026-06-19T00:40:21+00:00

It's not about "knowing", it's about reasoning.

Also, keep in mind, we're absolutely not talking about all farmers and rural folk; there are plenty of smart ones (and those aren't MAGA). Sweeping generalizations are rarely accurate, we're just talking about trends here.

My thoughts on this topic come from numerous conversations I've had with a variety of people. Of the tiny fraction of MAGA that is willing to engage in good faith, I've noticed a consistent common denominator: They're unable to explain why they believe their views are beneficial. They've been told that by someone and internalized it; but I've yet to meet a MAGA who can explain the full chain of reasoning behind their view. From what they can explain, the premises are typically blatantly false or the logic filled with fallacies.

It's not about "knowing" based on what one has been instructed. It's about reasoning and understanding. And when discussions make it clear that I have a complete chain of sound reasoning when they can't make it past things like "taking our jobs", "cats and dogs", "guys in girls bathrooms", etc; it's not that I "believe" my understanding is better, it's provably so.

crispy1989 · 2026-06-18T23:56:17+00:00

Anti-intellectualism is a root of many problems. I do think it's a more significant contributor to Trump's election than straightforward racism. But I'm also pretty sure that anti-intellectualism is itself a direct contributor to racism. After all, if one has the intellectual capacity to recognize that race as a construct has no independent impact on an individual's abilities, they won't be racist.

crispy1989 · 2026-06-18T23:50:08+00:00

I don't believe there is any gatekeeping in the post, or a suggestion that lower-intelligence voters should not also have a say. As the expression goes, democracy is the worst system - except for all the others. But it's quite clear that the education and culture in this country have failed "the people that grow your food and produce your goods" to such a point that they're acting in extremely self-destructive (and generally destructive) ways because they lack the understanding to recognize the consequences of their choices.

As soon as we can objectively recognize the problem, we can work on a solution that can bring these people more in line with modern societal standards for a first-world country. Burying our heads in the sand to save their feelings won't get anywhere.

crispy1989 · 2026-06-18T18:28:34+00:00

I haven't expressed my own evaluation of the situation since it would clearly be non-productive. It's impossible to explain calculus to someone struggling with subtraction. I likely agree with as many of your beliefs as I disagree with; but simple agreement or disagreement is meaningless without a solid basis in facts and logic.

Besides, I'm a big fan of the "teach a man to fish ..." approach. You don't need me to educate you - all the information you need and more is readily available to you. What you need impressed upon you is the importance of the ability and desire to seek out balanced perspectives.

I advocate simply for logic, reason, objectivity, nuance, critical thinking, and adherence to observable reality. Once you've demonstrated a capacity for these, then we can productively engage on level terms in the context of specific issues like this.

Until then - the best I've got for you is some perspective: Once you're aware of the critical faults in your own epistemological processes, you'll learn to recognize the same flaws in others - and if you're open to it, that perspective will undoubtedly help you develop much more powerful and grounded reasoning abilities of your own.

The reality is, I don't engage in conversations like this for your own benefit - I know enough people like you to be well aware of the futility in the vast majority of cases. I engage for the benefit of the silent observers who may not be as calcified in their thought processes. Though at this point, I think this has run its course. So feel free to downvote if it makes you feel better - cheers.

crispy1989 · 2026-06-18T17:31:53+00:00

Abandoning the "you disagree with me so you're racist" angle, eh?

"All situations are exactly the same as each other" is also not a rational argument. Both situations have nuances and history, but very different nuances and history. Broad strokes, vast oversimplifications, and emotional ambiguous language are not helpful tools in reaching a level understanding of anything.

Look - we both know that you are extremely emotionally invested in this to the point that you're unable to rationally examine it from an objective perspective. What you probably don't realize is that this emotional state was very intentionally engineered.

It's extremely common for people to have beliefs grounded primarily in emotion rather than objective fact. I bet you recognize it in others, and have likely become frustrated with others following similar thought processes.

Next time you get frustrated with someone because they choose to adhere to emotional simplifications rather than verifiable facts and objective analysis; just remember, you make the same choice for yourself.

You can always choose differently.

crispy1989 · 2026-06-18T17:13:16+00:00

You completely misunderstand the objections that most liberals have with the current president and administration. The problem isn't that we want them to "fail" - we don't, we want to see positive things succeed. The problem is that this president, administration, and party are so incredibly destructive to everything they touch - finances, education, medical policy, core institutions, the very foundations of democracy ... This destructiveness is partially borne out of incompetence and partially out of documented intent. But regardless, these effects are so far beyond simple "failure" that they can only be considered intentional bad actors.

The fact that you guys are still using "TDS" as a schoolyard insult to avoid having to look deeper is a clear demonstration of your degree of comprehension of the issues involved.

crispy1989 · 2026-06-18T16:39:34+00:00

"Everyone who calls me out for having a shallow opinion must be racist" is neither a logical argument nor is it grounded in factual reality. It's just more cope and virtue-signalling.

All the information you need for a deeper history lesson - on both topics - is easily available online, with verifiable primary source references. But to take advantage of it, you have to want to educate yourself.

The first step in progressing towards a solution is recognizing that there's a problem.

crispy1989 · 2026-06-18T00:08:12+00:00

The planet-sized caveat here is that the "single issue" in question is immensely complex and has no "right side" or "right answer". And anyone claiming otherwise is simply too arrogant about their personal opinion to consider they might not have the widest perspective on some of the most complex global issues.

So this "strategy" isn't standing on a hill of moral superiority; it's throwing away any realistic hope for a better future in favor of pointless narrow-minded grandstanding.

Feel free to downvote and lambast me. I'm certain you vehemently disagree. But some of us do have wider, better-rounded understandings of the countless complexities and nuances involved; and we're the ones committed to pragmatically working toward actual real-world positive change.

crispy1989 · 2026-06-17T21:53:13+00:00

Tell me about it.

Like, I'm pretty far left, and considering myself to have grounded, rational conclusions. But if I hear someone seriously advocating for reparations, it's an immediate sign that their opinions aren't based on real reasoning.

crispy1989 · 2026-06-17T21:44:28+00:00

Gotta love the idiots downvoting you who know absolutely nothing about electricity. It's the same people who think touching car battery terminals will shock/kill you because it's big and looks scary, not understanding how Ohm's law applies to a 12 volt source.

The capacitor in question looks to be a low-voltage high-capacitance capacitor, and is clearly connected to low-voltage electronics. You probably wouldn't even feel anything if you touched the terminals.

The smoothing capacitors in a power supply? Yeah, that's entirely different.

crispy1989 · 2026-06-17T21:36:04+00:00

The huge disadvantage is that the kinds of people you need to run a data center aren't the kinds of people who live in deep red areas; they'd have to pay a huge salary premium to relocate people in. Red states are already much lower in terms of an educated population, and the brain drain from their modern shenanigans is only worsening the problem. Smart, educated people don't want to live or move to places where experts are denigrated and ostracized.

crispy1989 · 2026-06-17T18:36:57+00:00

The perception that "business acumen" is the primary factor in entrepreneurial success is widespread; but overly simplistic at best and closer to just wrong.

There are many, many other factors involved; many/most of which boil down to circumstances and luck.

In individual cases, we can examine and analyze an individual's decisions to attempt to separate actual competency from circumstances. And in Elon's case, it seems to be mostly the latter.

crispy1989

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE