Trump

Inane baanter or words of wisdom - you decide...
Post Reply
User avatar
Harlequin
Baaaaaaa!
Baaaaaaa!
Posts: 6505
Joined: Wed Jun 05, 2002 4:19 am 0
Location: London, directly above the centre of the Earth.

Re: Trump

Post by Harlequin »

Harlequin wrote:
KlaxonCow wrote:One of those people who died at the US Capitol riot has been revealed to be a police officer.
I think he died after the first four, collapsing from a head injury after he had returned to the station.
And now another officer has reportedly died but this time, apparently, by suicide.

I presume not one of these friendly folk (including those standing around in the background seemingly taking a well-earned rest from all that exhausting law enforcement):


Nor any of these noble men on what seems to be the north side of the compound bravely defending their seat of Federal Government from the stormingstrolling mob:
Emoticon and contraction free since... quite a while ago.
User avatar
F-ZeroOne
Baaaaaaa!
Baaaaaaa!
Posts: 8208
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2004 8:27 pm 0

Re: Trump

Post by F-ZeroOne »

"Stars don't twinkle in space." - Char Aznable.
User avatar
Misfit
Sheepie Whore
Sheepie Whore
Posts: 10446
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2002 2:43 pm 0
Location: Nottingham UK
Contact:

Re: Trump

Post by Misfit »

A Trump golf course was due to hold the US PGA Championship, one of golf's major tournaments, in 2022. The PGA of America has decided they don't want to be associated with him and have dumped it from the schedule.

Sport acting quicker/better than Politics and probably a move that will hurt him a lot more than most things outside of prison will. His love of golf seems to come pretty much above everything.

Of course, the UK preempted all this, and here golfing authorities haven't selected his course, Turnberry in Ayrshire, since he bought the resort in 2014 (currently the Open Championship has all venues announced until 2024) - although there is a rotation in place, as it has been used in the past, it is likely it would have been selected between its last holding of the championship in 2009 and 2024.
User avatar
WiteWulf
Sheepie Whore
Sheepie Whore
Posts: 10125
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 11:20 am 0
PSN: WiteWulf
Location: Loughborough(ish)

Re: Trump

Post by WiteWulf »

Nearly spat my Shreddies out when I heard that on the news this morning. Bloody good show by the PGA
:::G:::

PSN: WiteWulf
Switch: SW-3941-2878-7584
Steam: WITEWULF66
User avatar
gilesgoat
Sheepie Whore
Sheepie Whore
Posts: 27258
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:54 am 0
Location: Monfalcone, Italy
Contact:

Re: Trump

Post by gilesgoat »

What I still don't quite get it is that "his boys" done more or less precisely what he wanted, they could not have done "more" except a "real revoution" like storming in and capturing all the government members or such ..

So "What part of HIS plan did not work out ?" .. What was he expecting after what he's said and such that's now "on record on all the news of the world forever ?" ..

Should he be "so unexpectedly" been tried to be impeached and/or article 25 and/or whatever it will happen ?

Was he expecting Biden to be thrown out of the windows in the streets and him re-instated as president forever ?

Mah ..

I think "he really did not consider well at all the consequences of his actions" ..
Giles the billy goat
"Baa"
User avatar
Yak
Sheepie Whore
Sheepie Whore
Posts: 20266
Joined: Wed Apr 17, 2002 10:22 am 0
Location: Wales
Contact:

Re: Trump

Post by Yak »

Justified and Ancient.
User avatar
KlaxonCow
Baaaaaaa!
Baaaaaaa!
Posts: 8445
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2002 3:46 am 0
Location: A large grassy field.

Re: Trump

Post by KlaxonCow »

Harlequin wrote:Image
Because, of course, there fundamentally is no difference.

It's the same God. It's more or less the same set of rules. You're only looking at a mild "flavour" difference in interpretation.


Like I pointed out a long time back, let's take a look at the orthodox religious dress for women in all three "flavours":

Image

Although, in fairness, I reckon that they've picked a very extreme example of the Jewish veil there (though, hey, it's a thing). This is more usefully representative of a more typical orthodox Jewish dress (both male and female):

Image

Let's be frank. They're essentially identical. The Christian one likes to fashionably add a bit of white, and reserves it for nuns. Arabic Islam prescribes it for all women (and the adjective "Arabic" is important, as it's really Arab culture and Islamic women elsewhere never really did this historically - though it has become more fashionable as a statement of Islamic identity more widely, since 9/11 and Iraq, just because it causes controversy and becomes a good "I am Muslim" statement to make).


But, fundamentally, it's all the same. It's just different interpretations of the very same religious rules about covering your head and being modest before God.

Before the 20th century, and part way into it, everybody universally wore a hat. Everyone. Very unseemly not to have your head covered in public.

God hates the top of people's heads, apparently. I guess, from his perspective up there, looking down, that's all he's seeing from his "bird's eye view". So maybe the "everyone wear a hat" is just to help him work out who's who.

"Oh, right, that darker flat cap. That's Bob. I'd recognise that hat of his anywhere. Scruffy thing. He really needs to buy a new one."
"Words ought to be a little wild - for they are assaults of thought on the unthinking."
- John Maynard Keynes
User avatar
SuperMappy
Baaaaaa!
Baaaaaa!
Posts: 2107
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2005 5:30 am 0
Location: Circleville, OH

Re: Trump

Post by SuperMappy »

Image
Bustin' Naughty Folks since 1983
MAME: Forever Young!

"If you buy a game at launch, you are paying the most amount of money for the worst version of the game" - TotalBiscuit
User avatar
Misfit
Sheepie Whore
Sheepie Whore
Posts: 10446
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2002 2:43 pm 0
Location: Nottingham UK
Contact:

Re: Trump

Post by Misfit »

KlaxonCow wrote:
Harlequin wrote:
Image

Although, in fairness, I reckon that they've picked a very extreme example of the Jewish veil there (though, hey, it's a thing). This is more usefully representative of a more typical orthodox Jewish dress (both male and female):

Image
Sorry, but going to cry foul here. Whilst you point it out, it's not even a thing.

The male dress for the ultra-orthodox Hasidic Jewish male in the picture is right but both shots of the women is not. Married Hasidic Jewish women will cover their hair, but not in any way like in either photo. My wife lived in Jerusalem for many years and got a bit cross when she just saw my screen.
User avatar
KlaxonCow
Baaaaaaa!
Baaaaaaa!
Posts: 8445
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2002 3:46 am 0
Location: A large grassy field.

Re: Trump

Post by KlaxonCow »

Misfit wrote:Married Hasidic Jewish women will cover their hair
I just want to keep this here, as this is my actual fundamental point.

That Jews, Christians and Muslims are all technically obeying the same rule about covering the head. Christianity "extends" Judaism, Islam "extends" Judaism and Christianity. Indeed, Allah does explicitly identify himself as being the same deity as God and Yahweh / Jehovah at one point.

As these religions have undergone schisms within themselves - Catholics and Protestants, Sunni and Shia, etc. - one could also further see these three as really being just larger schisms of the same underlying, originally Jewish, religion.

(Well, actually, maybe "originally Egyptian". There are the theories about Akhenaten's monotheism feeding into Judaism - and, hey, the Jewish Exodus was from Egypt. Plus, you can find aspects of Zoroastrianism creeping into the Abrahamic religion.

Basically, as I would contend, religions don't really come from gods. They come from people, encoding their cultural and moral values in holy texts, ascribed to higher powers, for legitimacy as "the truth". And so you totally do get divergent evolution - schisms in the faiths - and mythology bleeding over from one culture to another. In the same way that you can trace the evolution of the many languages we all speak, you can also trace the evolution of the cultural and moral values and beliefs. Because, really, it's all man-made, just as languages are, so it really actually obeys memetic inheritance and "horizontal transfer" and all the rest of it.

So, an even bigger argument is that you could go up another level and see the whole Abrahamic "branch", as a schism from a wider set of cultural values and beliefs - and stories, like the Flood - that was doing the rounds in that area at the time.)

I just want that one on the record that the real fundamental point here is that we're arguing over the finer details of "interpretation" of what really is the exact same rule about head coverings. That's the point I was making.

Then we can, that established, go on to argue whether those particular photos were a fair representation of Judaism. And, well, when I found that first image, I myself didn't think it was at all fair, which is why I tried to seek something better.

And I don't object to the wife's observations about present day Jerusalem. Compared to the others, Judaism is more ancient and the most mature.

Even in the heart of Israel, there's a heck of a lot of "cultural Jews". Folks who're secular and even atheist, but they maintain their Jewish cultural heritage. Because, unlike other religions where you can "opt in" by belief, Judaism lets you in through marriage rules and so "Jew" is both religious and cultural. Indeed, anti-Semitism is actually racism, as the Jews are a race - as this all passes down family lines and such - whereas Islam is a religious ideology, not a race. And, like, anyone can become a Muslim - just "opt in" to the beliefs and you're a Muslim. No marriage nor prior permission required. Though, before doing so, please remember that many Muslims do still hold that apostasy is punishable by death, so you can "opt in" at will, but some of them try to make it very hard to "opt out" later on.

But, like, I'm not talking about how these religions are today only.

I'm talking about their whole history - indeed, the notion that they're really just one religion, that has had three major schisms (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) and then subsequent minor schisms (Catholic / Protestant, Sunni / Shia) and then all manner of "point release" denomination schisms below that (e.g. Methodist, Baptist, Evangelical, Quaker, Mormon, etc., etc.). Like Christianity alone has actual thousands of denominations.

And, as I say, if you're into your theology, then you can even see how this whole "branch" fits into wider cultural beliefs - that monotheism came out of Egypt with Akhenaten, that there's some really obvious plagiarism from the Epic of Gligamesh / Zoroastrianism in Abrahamic mythology.

Because, sorry, the evidence is pretty obvious, once you examine things at this level, that there are no actual gods here. These are man-made encodings of cultural and moral values, of the culture's beliefs and stories, packaged up into nice "memetic packets" for passing on down the generations, to preserve that culture's values, stories, rules and regulations.

When you look at it like this, then you can see that it works very similarly to how languages have evolved, diverged, borrowed from each other, and implicitly capture cultural thought by the words that are in the language and aren't in the language, and even capture hints of mythology in idiomatic language (e.g. "rise from the ashes like a Phoenix", "slow and steady wins the race", etc.).

And I just want to get that perspective across, because it's kind of a "can't see the woods for the trees" thing. Understandably so. I have perfect humanist sympathy for why all this shit has befallen humanity, and why people buy into it (because, in a misspent youth, I myself did once totally buy into it as well). This is not a criticism or a telling off, but an attempt to explain what's really going on here. To help people see the woods for the trees.

When you're steeped in Jewish or Christian or Islamic culture yourself, then often all you see is how "the other" is not like you. If you subscribe tightly to your culture's values and rules and regulations, then you'll see it in "we're right, and everyone else is wrong" terms.

Indeed, if you believe that it's wrong to drink alcohol then folks going out and getting pissed are, at least, wrong to do so, if not "pawns of Satan", being tempted / controlled by the Devil. Meanwhile, if you're a Christian, Jesus turned water into wine. He's fine with a little glass of red. Indeed, when you do the ritual of eating his flesh and drinking his blood, then his blood is a nice bottle of red.

But I want to go beyond this, to see that - though I'm no Muslim - you can perfectly well see where a culture would pick up the "no alcohol" meme. I mean, Christianity has had its own internal war with this one, with the Temperance Movement and America's Prohibition.

Underlying it, we can all appreciate the pragmatic point. Alcohol consumption can go horribly wrong, in alcoholism. When folks get totally hammered, they lose their inhibitions. Fights outside the pub. To use alcohol in one-off situation to relax and "drown your sorrows" could eventually become a problem, if someone just drinks and drinks and drinks to avoid their problems, rather than face them - just like someone who "comfort eats" could end up no better off and now morbidly obese on top of all their troubles.

If you're honest, then you can totally understand the pragmatics of where Islamic culture got the "no alcohol" thing from. In many of the more dodgy situations that could arise, they aren't actually wrong. If you go down the rabbit hole, then alcohol can very easily become a serious problem.

I feel that, if you look close enough, then you eventually see the underlying pragmatic and human values that are there. In ye olde dayes, they would wrap up these morals and values and mythologies into stories. Tales to be told around the camp fire. Pass on wisdoms, pass on values, pass on shared culture, encode the social rules and regulations of the culture into stories, or a set of 10 rules that you deity carved into stone for a prophet.

There is evolutionary survival value in this. It's what elevates us humans from our animal cousins. We can talk. Tell stories. Communicate our shared values and come to agreement. Co-operate to a very precise level. This is just how we humans work.

And, even right now, I'm continuing that. Weaving you a little story that connects the dots, so that these thoughts might transfer into your head and you might also feel the revelation of "ah, now I see how it works".

Which, by the way, is the only way to do it. I don't want to ban religions. If there was a magical button that I could hit and make them vanish, then I wouldn't hit it. I don't want to just take away people's beliefs or their culture or their stories. I quite adore a good bit of mythology.

The idea is more one of education. That we all learn why alcohol might be a problem sometimes, why you logically should "do unto others as you would have done by you", what constitutes good hygiene to help us keep those germs and viruses at bay. I don't want to take away or undermine these things, but actually educate and explain them.

I don't want to ban religion, but I would like to see it eventually become obsolete.

Like, personally, I don't want to ban anyone from using "the N word". My take on it is that what we should be aiming for is explaining to people what melanin is, how cultures have evolved in different places, how - because the Earth is round - you get different levels of sunlight at different latitudes (further modified by that 23.4 degree tilt that I've covered before) and that sort of thing.

I wouldn't use "the N word" because, to me, it makes no sense. It doesn't refer to reality. I would never use the word in anger, not because of social prohibition, but because it means nothing to me. I would have no use for such semantics.

This is my vision for Lennon's "and no religion too". Not that it's banned, but that it's just obsolete. No-one's interested in its inferior description of reality. That folks reason out their morals and don't just blindly obey some rules in some book written thousands of years ago (for a situation that, like, doesn't exist anymore).

In fact, I'd say that for the whole of Lennon's "Imagine". That, one day, there won't be countries, just because we no longer need nor care about such "false kin". That there is no need for greed nor hunger, as we finally sort out that problem, for everyone, once and for all. Reaching perhaps Star Trek levels of replicators and shit, so that, yeah, "imagine no possessions". I mean, not literally no things but, well, if you can summon up "Tea. Earl Grey. Hot" from a machine and then have that machine deconstruct the tea cup afterwards... you just wouldn't have the same relationship with things and possessions anymore, would you? When you can just magic things up and magic them away.

In a sense, take a step back. See the human beings. See the long patterns of history. See the similarities in beliefs and actions, and recognise their shared common ancestor.

See the woods, not the individual trees.
"Words ought to be a little wild - for they are assaults of thought on the unthinking."
- John Maynard Keynes
User avatar
gilesgoat
Sheepie Whore
Sheepie Whore
Posts: 27258
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:54 am 0
Location: Monfalcone, Italy
Contact:

Re: Trump

Post by gilesgoat »

KlaxonCow wrote:*SNIP*

"I don't think there's any god and if there's is anything like what we think." - Dr Manhattan, Watchmen


:mrgreen:
Giles the billy goat
"Baa"
User avatar
KlaxonCow
Baaaaaaa!
Baaaaaaa!
Posts: 8445
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2002 3:46 am 0
Location: A large grassy field.

Re: Trump

Post by KlaxonCow »

For example, "puritan" Protestantism:

Image

During the Reformation, they went on their own "idol purge" - just like Mohammed - going around trashing Catholic churches, and removing its "idolatry" and smashing stained glass windows.

And they were obeying the same "no false idols / graven images" rule that Muslims are obeying when they freak out about drawing of Mohammed.

Mosques have these lovely geometric patterns and shit inside them (truly amazing - it completely appeals to the mathematician / graphic designer within me, as almost "pure art"). But this is because they take that rule very seriously, so there's no depictions of anything living at all. Not just no pictures of Mohammed, but no pictures of anything living that could, you know, become a "false idol" that people might start worshipping.

Indeed, one of the Protestant complaints was that, well, Mary - mother of Jesus - is often treated, in Catholicism, as a kind of semi-deity unto herself. That she gets worshipped. And that's interpreted by these Protestants, as a very clear violation of the First and Second Commandments. There is one and only one god, and you don't worship anyone or anything else. No bowing to golden statues of cows. Or, indeed, worshipping a carving of Jesus's mother. Or, indeed, even the cross itself - those were "idols" by Protestant standards.

Like, back in the Reformation, the Protestants got all fundamentalist about the First and Second Commandments, and they were just like the Muslims you see today, going on a big "idol purge" to remove all these "false gods" from corrupt Catholic worship.

And, in the image above, we have Puritan dress code. All about modesty.

Cromwell banned Christmas, you know. Too hedonistic. Too pagan. Too immodest.

I mean, "puritans" are called puritans, because they had these notions of "moral purity" through self-control.

But, yeah, today's Protestants are about as lax as you can get. The Church of England. It's all very ecumenical and all-embracing. Very "meek and mild" and tolerant, in their image of Jesus (who one could argue wasn't really quite as nice as he's often painted but, hey, while they believe that, it's a good false belief to leave alone and not disabuse the Protestants of - we don't want to arouse their earlier Puritan fundamentalism again).

And this is kind of what I mean that I'm trying to look at this in the broader view of history. Like, Protestants today are very different to how they originally kicked off, when they schism-ed from Catholicism.

And the thing is, when folks make depictions of Mohammed - to the annoyance of Muslims - how do they know what Mohammed looked like?

Well, because when you go far enough back, Muslims used to draw Mohammed. There are old Islamic depictions of their prophet.

This is like the Protestants in reverse. They once didn't give as much of a shit about the First and Second Commandments - weren't so fundamentalist about it - and there are drawings of Mohammed in the ancient Islamic world.

But then it got more fundamentalist - and that means being more rigid and strict to the fundamental rules, like the Commandments - so then, nope, no drawings of Mohammed anymore. Because people might start worshipping the prophet - as a "false idol" - and not Allah himself. Kind of like, as I was saying, how, in Catholicism, Mary is often very close to being treated as a god herself - but that's threatening a violation of the First Commandment.

These things come and go. All the faiths have gotten more fundamentalist and more liberal.

Christian literalism, as we often see in today's America, really is a modern phenomenon. You can see ancient Christian theologians who're totally okay with interpreting certain stories as metaphor and not really real. Such sophistications can be found all the way back to the beginning, and they aren't just modern "interpretations" that are slacking off strict belief, as the secular and scientific world makes much of the religious texts, well, irrelevant to most people.

I'm not having a go at any particular religion or religious belief here, but trying to encapsulate how the whole thing works and tracing it to its pragmatic, humanist roots.

There's one thing that me and religion completely agree on: We'll all on that journey to improve ourselves and perfect our moral behaviour. To do the right thing. Make the world a better place. On this, there is NO disagreement at all.

I just think that humanity's early attempts at this - in religion - were the first primitive attempts at this. They're obsolete now. We can do better, through science, evidence and reason. Lots of stuff that humans used to believe, we now know for a fact are complete bollocks. And, indeed, so very often morally reprehensible.

Like, at one point in the Bible, God gives out rules for how to treat your slaves. He's basically endorsing slavery, as long as you do it according to his special rules. And, trust me, those rules are - to modern eyes - dodgy as fuck, as there's a bit about how to correctly sell your own daughter into sex slavery in there.

To the modern mind, this is unbelievably immoral. Totally fucked up. But, like, back then slavery was accepted, so the deity that they made up to set the social rules and regulations is written as being fine with it, as everyone was back then, so long as you did it the culturally-approved way.

Well, I hope folks get the gist of what I'm getting at. We can argue the differences in the "fine details" but the overall thing - why those two images have such similarities - is basically just variant "flavours" of "interpretation" of, often, the exact same text. Like, literally the exact same words, as carved out in stone by God for Moses. Because they all have that in common.

Same god, same rules - just different ways of reading it and reacting to it. And, yes, this isn't even consistent across history - Islam used to be way more relaxed and secular, Christianity used to be bloody awful with "idol purging" and inquisitions and Crusades and shit.
"Words ought to be a little wild - for they are assaults of thought on the unthinking."
- John Maynard Keynes
User avatar
SuperMappy
Baaaaaa!
Baaaaaa!
Posts: 2107
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2005 5:30 am 0
Location: Circleville, OH

Re: Trump

Post by SuperMappy »

Bustin' Naughty Folks since 1983
MAME: Forever Young!

"If you buy a game at launch, you are paying the most amount of money for the worst version of the game" - TotalBiscuit
User avatar
KlaxonCow
Baaaaaaa!
Baaaaaaa!
Posts: 8445
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2002 3:46 am 0
Location: A large grassy field.

Re: Trump

Post by KlaxonCow »

"Words ought to be a little wild - for they are assaults of thought on the unthinking."
- John Maynard Keynes
User avatar
F-ZeroOne
Baaaaaaa!
Baaaaaaa!
Posts: 8208
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2004 8:27 pm 0

Re: Trump

Post by F-ZeroOne »

Trump, going by comments from reports on his visit to his infamous wall, appears to remain completely oblivious to how annoyed people are with him. Not that thats anything new, but he seems to have reached a whole new level of reality denial.

And Mike? He never loved you.
"Stars don't twinkle in space." - Char Aznable.
Post Reply