AnAmericanComposer

You did an excellent job identifying my problem, thank you. And, also, your model of how modern liberals act is very true. Many of my friends are BLM supporters (I don't think they have the gall to actually go out and protest, but they are the couch-warriors, if you will), and even against my pleas they believe that they are supporting something just and pure, and that black people do experience systemic racism. I did write a more emotionally-charged post above than I normally would have. I had just heard about what the terrorists in Milwaukee had been doing, and someone I knew was brazen enough to tell me that the liberal media reports on Trump's tweets more often than Milwaukee because he is "baiting them" and "shooting himself in the foot". You know, you can only bait those who can be baited! MSM goes after Trump more than report on actual problems happening now because they can't report on reality anymore. It's disgusting. I have people tell me that all media is the exact same, and that it isn't heavily biased against conservative values. When questioned by my mother (who, thankfully, isn't mad at me, but more concerned about how I carry myself), I told her, much to her chagrin, that I stand by my statements. I only deleted them because I didn't feel like dealing with red tape. I did in fact try to buffer my claims and try to do some proactive damage control, and it made my argument look weaker. I'm still debating in my mind whether to shut up or speak up, but regardless that decision will come easier with the new things to consider that you brought. Thank you, aviet64.

I made a post on Facebook, outraged by the events happening in Milwaukee, but decided to delete it. I posted: I didn't know that people who were subscribed to my page (didn't know you could do that on Facebook; never use it) could read it, even after deletion, since it was in their notifications, and doesn't go away until they leave the page. I have been "outed" as a racist by my mother and roommate, and lost a friend (sort of an uncle) online in the process, who is married to a black woman. I'm just not quite sure how to go about this situation. My family in general is liberal, and I tend to disagree heavily with their ideals. As a conservative, atheist (they're mostly theists) Trump supporter, I don't have many friends that way. Does anyone have any advice? Maybe even just some experiences they'd share?

Hello! I am a classical-themed YouTuber with a rather large following, and I have lately been doing biographical-style videos on different composers, but wanted to change things up a bit. Music has been being used by political parties to forward their agenda for centuries, and I wanted to showcase some music, discuss the composition of the works, what specifically they were appealing to, and compare their themes and moods with each other. I so far have begun compiling music from the USSR, Nazi Germany, colonial America (both northern and confederate), North Korea. Could anyone point me in the direction of particularly striking nationalist / otherwise-political music you've ever encountered? I'll include a link to the video when I'm done, but it may take a couple weeks to finish! Thank you very much. Either respond here, or (for quicker response) please email me at [email protected] Evan Bennet / AnAmericanComposer

I haven't actually gotten to his book, yet, as I'm still working through my Kierkegaard (Fear and Trembling) and Plato (Allegory of the Cave), but I am very interested in reading his books. The split-brain idea is confounding to me, and so powerful. If we believe theists, the soul is consciousness, they're one and the same. A soul cannot be split, though, as it is a spiritual entity. If consciousness can be split and altered so drastically, then what argument can be made for a soul? Did the scientists 'create' a secondary soul by splitting the brain? If that is the case, then are the scientists gods? That is a lot of options that frankly I didn't even think to get into, but you're entirely right. Everyone says that God is everything, and anything, and is perfect and holy and good, and yet one can't be all those things, because they contradict each other. To take a pantheistic view of God, that means that Hitler and Madeline Murray O'Hair (I'm certainly not equating the two!) are extensions of God. It reminds me of the cryptic video that Stefan had with a caller who tried to disprove the law of non-contradiction. God is everything and nothing? That simply doesn't make sense. Thank you for your thoughts, everyone!

I say, let the lefties commit incest. The more they inbreed, the more mentally retarded their kids become. Eventually they'll breed themselves into extinction. I think that if we let them go hog-wild, they'll eventually die off. This is like when we give welfare to people who refuse to work. We are standing in the way of social Darwinism. Wake up, sheeple!

The powerful debate between David Silverman and Frank Turek spurred me to think about how immoral the god of the Bible is. I encourage people to give their ideas, and discuss them. I'll start with my favorite: Silverman's argument was this: 1. God is all-knowing, all-powerful, and controls everything. 2. God knows the outcome of any action he may ever take. 3. God put Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden with knowledge that they would become sinners after eating from the Tree of Knowledge. 4. God put the Tree of Knowledge in its location, knowing full well that Eve and eventually Adam would be tempted, and fall. 5. God could have put the Tree anywhere, or not created it at all, and made a world without pain, death or sin, but chose to, knowing the consequences. Thus, God is malicious, and purposefully created a reality where there is pain and suffering. To be intellectually honest, one either has to accept that God is evil, or they have to say that God doesn't exist! Perfect argument. What are some of people's favorite argumentum contra Deum?

There is a glorious debate between David Silverman and Frank Turek. A bit long, but Silverman destroys Turek on the discussion of objective morality. He makes some stellar points. I suggest you watch the debate. His discussion of the morality of God in the story of Adam and Eve is the best.

I appreciate the perspective and feedback, aviet64, and what you say about resources makes a lot of sense. Stefan tends to discuss resources a lot in his videos, and I should have considered that angle when I was making my post! I agree with you about depression. Depression, cutting, suicidal tendencies... these are all forms of self-punishment, to varying degrees. And it seems like the whole "whites are evil" narrative is plaguing basically every western country. The discussion that McInnes had with the SJW is the best, I've seen it more than once. Truly a masterpiece. "You mean European countries with a higher density of whites?" Pure gold. Donnadogsoth, your perspective was interesting as well! Much more racy, but in ten, twenty, fifty years, I could totally imagine it. It's like the Freedom of Religion act on steroids. "How DARE you deny me my religious freedom to worship my idol with child sacrifice? Pagan pigs!"

Hello everyone! This is my first post on the forums here, and I'm very excited to get into the discussion. I figured for my grand entrance, I would open with a social science theory that I've built over the last couple weeks, but haven't told anyone. HISTORY OF IDENTITY POLITICS... So, if we were to look at an incredibly loose history of identity politics (IP), I think a logical beginning would be around the time of the Suffragettes. They fought for the right for women to vote. The same thing happened with the black community, allowing them to vote. I've noticed that when the big civil rights movements were happening - Women, Black people, Homosexuals - they fought for equal rights on the grounds that, "hey, we're not monsters. Being [insert] doesn't make me a bad person." And indeed, it didn't. So, for the longest time, people said, in essence, "Who are you to judge me for being black? There's nothing wrong with being black!" This first- and second-wave feminism and black rights were revolutionary, and truly established freedom where someone who was healthy and happy didn't have to be ashamed for simply existing. PRESENT DAY... Nowadays, people fight for things that are in a completely different realm from what the classical reformists fought against. Fat-shaming immediately comes to mind. A person fighting for fat-acceptance is not fighting for the same long-battled-for equal rights a person fighting for legal liberation of blacks is. There are reasons that 'fatness' is considered unappealing to the general public: it is a sign of laziness, possibly bad hygiene, poor management of habits, and many potential health issues. What I notice is, a giant group of black people can't vote, and want to. Their existence isn't damaging inasmuch fat-accepting is. I get this idea that someone one day said: "I don't like being fat, but I don't want to put in the effort to fix it. I know that I am unhealthy, but I don't have the will-power to fix it." Some social justice warrior comes along, said: "Hey! Don't talk like that! There is nothing wrong with being fat. You are perfect exactly the way you are. If everyone doesn't think you look gorgeous, it is their fault." This idea put into people's mind tells them that it is okay to be unhealthy, and that they should be viewed with the same valor that a thinner person would be. I am not implying that fat people should self-flagellate and fill themselves with internal malice, but certainly no sane, self-aware person would try to imply that all of the work that has been done on the 'war on obesity' is for naught? That they've been WRONG, all WRONG all along? You backwards people, don't you know that Fat is Fit? The fat person of fifty years ago was different than the one today. The one in history would have been told (or shown through public interaction) that their lack of health isn't acceptable. They would have been aware of their problems, and worked at fixing them. The fat person of 2016 is told that they're perfect the way they are, and should only associate with people that will hold up the blinders to reality that they've constructed for themselves. The modern social reform and IP is a way of letting people live unhealthy lives, and convincing them that anyone trying to help them are 'haters' and 'bigots'. It replaces self-awareness for absolute delusion. WHAT'S THE FUTURE? I think this idea of delusion and intellectual dishonesty dictating our daily interactions and redefining health will continue to contaminate our society. I am preparing myself to find the next big social movement calling for "acceptance of depression", or "AIDS is beautiful". Depression is a horrendous affliction, and I have many family members that suffer from it. I can appreciate that what they're going through isn't 'normal', nor 'healthy', and through the way we interact in the household as well as taking medication and seeking therapy, they are self-aware of their problems and are working to fix them. But, fixing depression is hard. Who's to say that someone won't say, "Hey! Don't think that way! There's nothing wrong with being depressed. You just are a bit more serious than other people are. People should accept you for who you are! People who are trying to change you with drugs and therapy are bigots and haters, and you should reject them." This "Accept Depression" movement will not only make people more willing and ready to identify as depressed (not necessarily bad, if they then take steps to fix it, but in this scenario they wouldn't), but it will also delude them into thinking that they are healthy and don't need to fix themselves. They will pool together, wallowing in an emotional vacuum, and will interact with people who will suspend their misery. Is this really a healthy way of life? People with AIDS generally can't find people who will take them as sexual partners (if they're in the knowing about the person's disease). This is not a bad thing. It is self-preservation for the non-infected individual, so they don't pass this disease onto others, or their children. "But," the Social Justice Warrior shouts, "you non-AIDSers are oppressing that person! They need love too!" It would take a considerable amount of mental gymnastics and hardcore apologetics to explain away and unstigmatize AIDS, I imagine, and I cannot even fathom the thought process that would do so, but I can see the end result regardless. In the 'enlightened' age, viewing people as having 'problems', or being 'undesirable', is considered oppression, and is backwards and bigoted. Unless this type of behavior gets checked, and fast, I am afraid of what kind of society we might end up in. ~~~~ What did everyone think of my theory? I would love some feedback! Thank you very much. Evan Bennet / AnAmericanComposer