Pinned Tweet
P1: "all art is political"
Therefore "art" = "political"
If "art", then "political" and vice versa.
"Political" excludes nothing from "art" and vice versa.
"Meaning" is defines by what an object excludes.
Conclusion: "political" is a meaningless descriptor to refer to "art" QED.
Therefore "art" = "political"
If "art", then "political" and vice versa.
"Political" excludes nothing from "art" and vice versa.
"Meaning" is defines by what an object excludes.
Conclusion: "political" is a meaningless descriptor to refer to "art" QED.
thing with "all art is political" is that its deeply misunderstood. it means that all art has an intent and is influenced by real life political and sociocultural tendencies. you can study the artists' intent in every single piece of media ever, or at least what influenced it.
2
0
45
2,660
Dr. Righteous Idealed Dung retweeted
Yeah I think the idea of someone I thought a friend taking glee in the death of someone like me really unnerving
23
59
2,192
25,753
Dr. Righteous Idealed Dung retweeted
We found what he was actually offering and it was below minimum wage lol
People who argue for immigrants on the basis of needing cheap labor are scum and want everyone's wages lower so they profit more at your expense
People who argue for immigrants on the basis of needing cheap labor are scum and want everyone's wages lower so they profit more at your expense
(This is a video from 2022 btw.)
8
219
3,607
36,591
Dr. Righteous Idealed Dung retweeted
Except for the 12 apostles, 3 women, 5000 witnesses, and 70 missionaries he left that Paul was subject to if he lied.
Joe Rogan raises a fascinating question about the origins of Christianity. x.com/JoeRoganRecaps…
Jesus never left behind any known writings, while Paul never met Jesus during his lifetime yet became one of the earliest and most influential Christian writers.
Paul didn’t simply “invent” Christianity, but his influence on what Christianity became is impossible to ignore.
So how much of modern Christianity comes from Jesus, and how much comes from Paul?
13
103
1,981
36,286
Dr. Righteous Idealed Dung retweeted
“Jesus had like one command brah: love thy neighbor - and if you ever disagree with or comment on my Godless views that are very different from yours you’re like not a real Christian and rlly hateful… or something and Jesus would hate you!!”
go fuck yourself youtube
15
113
1,493
14,354
Dr. Righteous Idealed Dung retweeted
Magic sky wizard that sent you to hell was sooo ridiculous now the bitches are yapping about the Divine Feminine and Manifesting and literally believing in magic and putting eye of newt in fucking cauldron and literally calling themselves witches. WOW. So glad RELIGION is gone!
1
2
32
609
Dr. Righteous Idealed Dung retweeted
Aside from "Flock is necessary to catch criminals" (it isn't, as Auron describes), the other argument in favor is "Well you're already being surveilled anyhow so what's the big deal?"
That too however is a political choice. Technological capability does not imply that the capability must be used. It's been possible to tap phones since phones existed, but ubiquitous phone taps were only a feature of the most paranoid and tyrannical communist regimes; free countries required security services to obtain a warrant.
Similarly with cameras. Just because surveillance cameras exist, and just because it's possible to network them with AI, it does not follow that we must allow this.
Similarly with phones. Just because they can be used as bugs and tracking devices, it does not follow that this should be legal by default.
That we've allowed all of this is a result of the same failure of will that gave us anarchotyranny in the first place. It's easier for the security services to ignore actual crime from protected groups and tighten the screws on taxpaying citizens, so that's what they do. It's easier for citizens to just let the authorities, and tech companies, strip us of our privacy and imprison us in a panopticon, so that's what we do. We let all of this happen by default.
But we don't have to live like this.
If we have the will we can force the authorities to enforce the law on actual criminals, and we can force them to respect the privacy of law-abiding citizens, regardless of what toys they have access to.
That too however is a political choice. Technological capability does not imply that the capability must be used. It's been possible to tap phones since phones existed, but ubiquitous phone taps were only a feature of the most paranoid and tyrannical communist regimes; free countries required security services to obtain a warrant.
Similarly with cameras. Just because surveillance cameras exist, and just because it's possible to network them with AI, it does not follow that we must allow this.
Similarly with phones. Just because they can be used as bugs and tracking devices, it does not follow that this should be legal by default.
That we've allowed all of this is a result of the same failure of will that gave us anarchotyranny in the first place. It's easier for the security services to ignore actual crime from protected groups and tighten the screws on taxpaying citizens, so that's what they do. It's easier for citizens to just let the authorities, and tech companies, strip us of our privacy and imprison us in a panopticon, so that's what we do. We let all of this happen by default.
But we don't have to live like this.
If we have the will we can force the authorities to enforce the law on actual criminals, and we can force them to respect the privacy of law-abiding citizens, regardless of what toys they have access to.
Crime in America is about a failure of will not a failure of technology
We know who does the crime, we know where, we know they should be convicted and sentenced, we know they should be imprisoned for a long time
Instead we ignore who does the crime because the politics are inconvenient, we ignore where crime occurs because it would reveal something unpleasant, we fail to properly charge because it makes our crime stats look less racist, we fail to convict because jurors side with their own identity groups instead of justice, we release criminals far too early so we can say there are fewer minorities in prison
WE KNOW HOW TO FIGHT CRIME, we're choosing not to do so out of politically correct cowardice, because our civic religion requires us to ignore reality
Flock is the perfect anarcho-tyrannical technology, it hands government more power to solve a problem entirely of their own, and because they already don't have the will to convict and incarcerate criminals now Fock cameras will not magically grant it to them
Flock cameras are not for criminals, they're for you
10
27
173
4,580
Dr. Righteous Idealed Dung retweeted
A lot of people who use this quote don't realize that the "childish" things in Lewis' day involved stuff like Alice in Wonderland, the stories of Edith Nesbit, and fairy tales curated by Andrew & Leonora Lang.
It didn't imply cartoon show drama, AI slop, or short-form brainrot.
It didn't imply cartoon show drama, AI slop, or short-form brainrot.
i think “adults should expand past watching solely things made for children” and “an adult can like things for children without being socially/artistically behind” are both thoughts that can coexist
15
33
356
10,507
Dr. Righteous Idealed Dung retweeted
Another retard oneshotted by the concept of lying.
New: Joe Rogan was visibly intrigued when former Christian Daniel Everett reveals he spent years in the Amazon trying to convert the Pirahã tribe to Christianity, but their questions about Jesus ended up turning him into an ATHEIST:
“You Don’t Know Anyone Who’s Ever Seen Him?”
t a casual Christian who lost interest in religion.
He went to Brazil in 1977 as a missionary, learned one of the world’s most unusual languages and translated the Gospel of Mark into Pirahã specifically to help convert them.
But he ran into a cultural rule that made Christianity extraordinarily difficult to communicate.
Everett has described the Pirahã as placing enormous importance on what he calls the “immediacy of experience”:
Information carries special weight when you personally witnessed it or when it comes from somebody who did.
Then they started asking Everett about Jesus.
EVERETT: “They said, ‘Yeah, yeah, but you’ve seen him. What did he look like?’”
“I said, ‘Well, I never saw him.’”
“I don’t know anyone who’s ever seen Jesus.”
EVERETT, quoting the Pirahã: “You don’t know anyone who’s ever seen him, and you’re just talking about him the whole time, telling us about him.”
“We don’t want to hear about this anymore.”
This wasn’t an overnight conversion to atheism.
Everett says he arrived in Brazil in 1977, was having serious doubts by around 1982, and by roughly 1985 he no longer believed.
He then kept his loss of faith largely secret for years because his family, livelihood and social world were deeply intertwined with Christianity.
And there was an experiment that makes this story even more fascinating.
Everett actually translated and recorded the Gospel of Mark in Pirahã.
He played it for a group of Pirahã men.
They understood what they were hearing.
But when they recognized the Pirahã man whose voice was telling the story, their response was essentially:
He didn’t witness Jesus either. Why should his recording change anything?
The missionary had successfully translated the Gospel.
The deeper problem was that he couldn’t translate the standard of evidence Christianity was asking them to accept.
There’s an important wrinkle here:
Calling the Pirahã simply “atheists” would be misleading.
Everett has described them talking about spirits and supernatural-looking beings, but crucially, they often speak about those experiences as things they believe they or someone they know actually encountered.
So this wasn't necessarily:
religious tribe vs atheist tribe.
It was closer to a collision between two radically different ways of establishing truth:
Christianity: testimony and traditions transmitted across thousands of years can carry religious authority.
Pirahã, as Everett describes them: Who actually saw it?
That cultural principle became so important to Everett that he later made it part of his academic work on Pirahã language and cognition.
And THAT triggered another enormous controversy.
Everett argued that Pirahã culture constrains communication toward immediate experience and that this helps explain extraordinary features he identified in their language.
Other prominent linguists challenged both his linguistic analysis and some of his claims about Pirahã culture.
So even the intellectual framework underneath this incredible story remains debated.
But one thing isn't really disputed:
Everett entered the Amazon intending to change the Pirahã worldview.
Instead, decades later, he wrote that their happiness and their demand for evidence he could not provide helped cause him to abandon his own faith.
Eventually he returned to them and told them: “I don’t believe this stuff anymore either.”
Their response?
“Oh, now you’re like us.”
8
5
642
11,456
Dr. Righteous Idealed Dung retweeted
In news that's shocking to nobody, r/atheism has decided to make the death of beloved country music singer Dolly Parton about how bad Christians are
0
1
100
1,480
Dr. Righteous Idealed Dung retweeted
Unintentionally hitting on a major philosophical problem. Empiricism suggests that all knowledge must be built on sense data (essentially what science is). But there is no sense data that can prove your senses can be relied upon, thus it cannot support its own basic premise.
225
712
13,000
311,526
Dr. Righteous Idealed Dung retweeted
For clarity, I marked the approximate date when Trump did the 20 billion dollar currency swap with Argentina.
163
248
13,164
574,370
