OK, remember when trump said he could shoot someone, and his supporters wouldn't care?

[zinfamous]

Strange that a presidential candidate can talk hypothetically about shooting someone on the street, but anyone else openly talking hypothetically about shooting a presidential candidate / nominee would probably get a visit from FBI or Secret Service agents and be detained for a while.

How in the %$#@ing %$#@ did this country elect him?

People be dumb

 

[woolfe9998]

And that was also a stupid poll.

Oh sure, it's always a stupid poll if it makes conservatives look foolish.

The thing about polls that ask people if they have idiotic opinions, some people who mean no might answer yes to be sarcastic, while others might answer no when they mean yes because they don't want to seem like idiots. There's no reason to assume that these two groups don't just cancel each other out.

Do you believe this poll?

https://www.prri.org/research/prri-...ics-election-clinton-double-digit-lead-trump/

Between 2011 and late 2016, the percentage of white evangelicals who say that personal immorality isn't a disqualifier for public office has gone up by 42 points. That is the same question in a different form, which is this: have the moral standards shifted on the right to accommodate Trump? I believe polls like the one posted by the OP because other polls show similar results when addressing what is essentially the same issue, which is the willingness of the right to excuse the immoral behavior of Trump (i.e. "locker room talk" and "it's OK to collude").

It's a pattern.

 

[pcgeek11]

True.
As well as those who took other comments seriously, such as: Build the wall, lock her up, make America great again, Repeal NAFTA, repeal and replace Obamacare...well you get the picture.

And I agree with you.

 

[pcgeek11]

You have a right to believe this poll if you want to, just like you have a right to be naive.

 

[Moonbeam]

You have a right to believe this poll if you want to, just like you have a right to be naive.

I have trouble believing the poll myself. I have known a lot of bigots in my time and most of them, other than in the area of their bigotry, are decent people, in the ordinary sense of the world. They don't know they hate themselves and all the suppressed vial ugliness that goes with it is out of consious awareness and would only surface in actions under pretty intense duress. Our normal behavior is more in line with what we have been taught is proper behavior and shooting random people would not make such a list.

 

[pmv]

I have trouble believing the poll myself. I have known a lot of bigots in my time and most of them, other than in the area of their bigotry, are decent people, in the ordinary sense of the world. They don't know they hate themselves and all the suppressed vial ugliness that goes with it is out of consious awareness and would only surface in actions under pretty intense duress. Our normal behavior is more in line with what we have been taught is proper behavior and shooting random people would not make such a list.

Even though this sort of psychologising is valid in many cases, it can also often be a luxury for those with security and power. People might not care about the psychological roots of bigotry if they are in real danger from the bigots.

It also completely ignores the social and political dimension. Not everything is about internal psychological traits, we exist in a social context that helps determine the costs and benefits for people of taking different attitudes.

Also, perhaps people said stuff as you did just before people started actually killing each other in Yugoslavia or Rwanda.

I don't think the poll respondents were being literal, but (in making what they probably know full well is an irrational response to the question) they were expressing a degree of anger and hostility towards those Trump sees as enemies that doesn't bode well.

 

[pmv]

Mainly the poll just seems to another demonstration of how divided and polarised the US is now. And the UK is similar. Every other argument over any subject at all now seems to involve one side deciding their enemies must be 'Brexiters' or 'Remainers'.

Polarisation and division seems to be the spirit of the age, at least in the Anglosphere. And I think it is ultimately driven by economic issues, though that might be my personal bias.

 

[cytg111]

I dont see how you can rationalize this into a nothing burger cause fake polls, polled may have been lying or otherwise given a dishonest answer... at the very least id expect the same carelessness with the truth when voting time comes around. I also think some of you underestimate the amount of hateful individuals and just where they are currently centered.
Its almost as if some of these ppl should see some fresh dead bodies with holes in the heads before answering such a poll.

 

[Geekbabe]

Trying to avoid Twitter a bit today. If I hear one more time that I can get chemo in an ER or that Jesus will heal me I might have a stroke.

 

[Moonbeam]

Trying to avoid Twitter a bit today. If I hear one more time that I can get chemo in an ER or that Jesus will heal me I might have a stroke.

You know, I think that if Jesus were to come back today those ignorant and callous fools you meet too many of on Twitter, would put him right back up on the cross to say, "Father forgive them for they know not what they do." I don't think Jesus came to cure cancer, a disease that is well known to occur in high percentage by chance, but to provide a counter in faith in love that can free the mind of the negative emotional effects such small minds either voluntarily or involuntarily inflict. Anyway, I think what I am trying to say is that in my opinion at least, you are much more like Jesus than they are and that's the real truth of the matter.

 

[Moonbeam]

......................

I don't think I am very familiar with where you come from with your posts, but I know that recently I have seen something about your posts that has suggested I might find your views personally interesting. I must say this one rather adds to that feeling. I can't recall anybody approaching my viewpoint is quite the same, I think rather rational, way that you do here. Let me see then if I can address your points:

pmy: Even though this sort of psychologising is valid in many cases, it can also often be a luxury for those with security and power. People might not care about the psychological roots of bigotry if they are in real danger from the bigots.

M: Indeed, but my post was about a poll and not about a genocidal action. I was trying to address the fact that a polarized situation requires two opposite and generally extreme attitudes that feed off each other thus escalating. I was trying to say to the liberal side of the equation, the side I feel has the best chance to apply reason and suppress the bias of emotion, that they risk becoming as irrational as their opposition.

pny: It also completely ignores the social and political dimension. Not everything is about internal psychological traits, we exist in a social context that helps determine the costs and benefits for people of taking different attitudes.

Also, perhaps people said stuff as you did just before people started actually killing each other in Yugoslavia or Rwanda.

M: If you read that over pretending you didn't know what you meant, you may see, or at least I think I see that what it means is not stated in a way that is tremendously clear. I think you are saying that to see bigotry as a psychological issue is to divorce it from real world context, the effects that bigotry has on society and how it should react to, say that bigotry as a threat.

If so, my position is that the way to counter the threat of bigotry before it manifests as violent action and destroys the society in which it exists, is via understanding what bigotry is before that happens. I think what you are saying is that you fear bigotry to the extent that you are leaning toward the notion that the ends of preventing a mass psychosis of bigotry entitles you to some manner of force in it's address.

In the case of Yugoslavia, for example, I remember very well and perhaps to my shame, What I would have told the Serbs before they went to wars against the Bosnians had I been the supreme leader. I would have told them, OK go right ahead and invade. We will write off 250. thousand lives right off the books, but if you cross the border, those 250 thousand I will make sure are yours. We will bomb you until that many of your own are dead. And if, after you lose that many people and want to still cross that border, we will recalculate how many you still have the potential to kill and also take that many again. The reaction to a real act of genocide must be extermination of the threat. I remember because the estimate of the number exterminated by the Serbs was approximately 250 thousand. Naturally the last thing in this world I would do is seek such power.

The point is that when people's bigotry turns into actions against the rights of other people the use of force to stop them is justified, in my opinion, but only up to the limit of expunging the threat. This is simply a moral fact that can only be properly executed when there is no hate. No hate is required to do what is right. This, in my opinion, is just the sad face of compassion. The innocent must be protected from the insanity acted out side of hate.

pmy: I don't think the poll respondents were being literal, but (in making what they probably know full well is an irrational response to the question) they were expressing a degree of anger and hostility towards those Trump sees as enemies that doesn't bode well.

M: Exactly but what?????? All that you fear will happen happens when the fear it will happen causes it to. What is the point of what I am saying?:

We hate ourselves because we were put down as children. We were made to conform to ideas that are bigotry, made to feel that only those bigots who think the same are the good people and that everybody else deserves the same torture we experienced twisting us into bigots. I am saying that everything we fear is a lie we believe, that what we were made to hate is evil, because what we were made to hate is ourselves. Imagine if people knew they hated themselves, knew it was a lie and said well fuck that, the monster I saw in the other was simply what I felt about myself and it was a lie all this time. Let me step off this wheel of Karma and not add to the hate. There is only love. There is no other answer than not to feed the hate.

 

[agent00f]

Thank you for sharing a taste of the horror you have endured from other people... let alone cancer.

In your words I see the pain they have caused, and I partly know why they have done this. In our trickle down economy they are, as Moonbeam says, made to feel worthless. It's like training a dog to be a killer. Humans are exactly the same way. A life lived under such competitive economic pressure where the decline in our system drives them further towards despair every day. They tell you to die, but really they just want to shove themselves off for all the misery they feel. For they share the burden of their feelings with others.

It is a truth, but not about you. It reflects our society as a whole, perhaps not in a way you might have originally thought of it. I hope you can forgive them for their ignorance some day. For they know not what they do, and it would be a shame to burden yourself with their sins. Know that no matter what happens you have been, and will be, loved.

It's pretty easy to see why low edu/skill people making well above average income might want to maintain the caste system which allow their position in society, and why you & moonbeam sorts feel compelled to protect them for your own interests.

Really too bad western society has successfully taught so many liberals to forget how rational self-interest works.

 

[agent00f]

In my opinion that is a universal condition. UberNeuman is like the Old Gods of religion, wrathful vengeful and contemptuous of evil, as any God of the Good should be. What he doesn't notice is that by being so he becomes identical to what he hates, consumed by wrath, vengeance and hate, the definition of evil. It is always the other who deserves to be punished and burn in hell. The Trump poll is profoundly optimistic. In every person who hates him or her self, there is an unconscious desire and ugliness within us to see everybody also suffer from that hate. This condition is universal, not like what the poll says. All this begins to peek out under extreme tension and stress and fear. The mass psychosis that conservatives have been experiencing for some time in now spreading to liberals courtesy of Trump, but it was all there before hidden by better times.

The world is ugly beyond comprehension but all if it is only because we believe in lies that we are worthless and because of this mistaken belief treat others that way. Sorry, but when it comes to real truth all we see are snowflakes that run for the hills. Who wants to be that ugly......

No, negative reinforcement mostly works, which is why there exists a criminal justice system, and why there's far less public displays of bigotry than decades before. But I guess we should get rid of all that too if inconvenient to your parody level pet psych "theories".

People be dumb

I wouldn't say they're dumber than you if they managed to convince you they were dumb/incompetent instead of selfish.

 

[Moonbeam]

No, negative reinforcement mostly works, which is why there exists a criminal justice system, and why there's far less public displays of bigotry than decades before. But I guess we should get rid of all that too if inconvenient to your parody level pet psych "theories".

Negative reinforcement, hehehe. Hatred and punishment of the person rather than enlightening and internalizing an understanding of why 'criminal' or immoral actions are not good for the self, only serves to repress such behaviors until such time as anonymity allows their expression. You, for example, would not come out with the contempt you feel for others in a bar and expect to walk out alive. You are the problem not the answer, a fact that is too inconvenient for your ego to handle.

 

[agent00f]

Negative reinforcement, hehehe. Hatred and punishment of the person rather than enlightening and internalizing an understanding of why 'criminal' or immoral actions are not good for the self, only serves to repress such behaviors until such time as anonymity allows their expression. You, for example, would not come out with the contempt you feel for others in a bar and expect to walk out alive. You are the problem not the answer, a fact that is too inconvenient for your ego to handle.

If degenerates were meant to be enlightened, that would've already happened after 12+ years of educator effort. For example, you know well as anyone that crime pays sans repercussions, yet here you are trying to pretend it doesn't.

 

[Moonbeam]

If degenerates were meant to be enlightened, that would've already happened after 12+ years of educator effort. For example, you know well as anyone that crime pays sans repercussions, yet here you are trying to pretend it doesn't.

That is the world as seen from your prison, a place where enlightenment has not yet entered. There is no way in hell that an education that led you to such ridiculous notions would help any other degenerate. The conditioning we have experienced we cling to even in the face of death. And the repercussions for crime are total and extreme. The unenlightened mind and especially the criminal mind can never know real happiness. And of course you do not know this. That is why you are sad and vicious and worship hate.

 

[agent00f]

That is the world as seen from your prison, a place where enlightenment has not yet entered. There is no way in hell that an education that led you to such ridiculous notions would help any other degenerate. The conditioning we have experienced we cling to even in the face of death. And the repercussions for crime are total and extreme. The unenlightened mind and especially the criminal mind can never know real happiness. And of course you do not know this. That is why you are sad and vicious and worship hate.

oh I'm sure those inmates who find jesus are the Real saints.

 

[pmv]

I don't think I am very familiar with where you come from with your posts, but I know that recently I have seen something about your posts that has suggested I might find your views personally interesting. I must say this one rather adds to that feeling. I can't recall anybody approaching my viewpoint is quite the same, I think rather rational, way that you do here. Let me see then if I can address your points:

pmy: Even though this sort of psychologising is valid in many cases, it can also often be a luxury for those with security and power. People might not care about the psychological roots of bigotry if they are in real danger from the bigots.

M: Indeed, but my post was about a poll and not about a genocidal action. I was trying to address the fact that a polarized situation requires two opposite and generally extreme attitudes that feed off each other thus escalating. I was trying to say to the liberal side of the equation, the side I feel has the best chance to apply reason and suppress the bias of emotion, that they risk becoming as irrational as their opposition.

pny: It also completely ignores the social and political dimension. Not everything is about internal psychological traits, we exist in a social context that helps determine the costs and benefits for people of taking different attitudes.

Also, perhaps people said stuff as you did just before people started actually killing each other in Yugoslavia or Rwanda.

M: If you read that over pretending you didn't know what you meant, you may see, or at least I think I see that what it means is not stated in a way that is tremendously clear. I think you are saying that to see bigotry as a psychological issue is to divorce it from real world context, the effects that bigotry has on society and how it should react to, say that bigotry as a threat.

If so, my position is that the way to counter the threat of bigotry before it manifests as violent action and destroys the society in which it exists, is via understanding what bigotry is before that happens. I think what you are saying is that you fear bigotry to the extent that you are leaning toward the notion that the ends of preventing a mass psychosis of bigotry entitles you to some manner of force in it's address.

In the case of Yugoslavia, for example, I remember very well and perhaps to my shame, What I would have told the Serbs before they went to wars against the Bosnians had I been the supreme leader. I would have told them, OK go right ahead and invade. We will write off 250. thousand lives right off the books, but if you cross the border, those 250 thousand I will make sure are yours. We will bomb you until that many of your own are dead. And if, after you lose that many people and want to still cross that border, we will recalculate how many you still have the potential to kill and also take that many again. The reaction to a real act of genocide must be extermination of the threat. I remember because the estimate of the number exterminated by the Serbs was approximately 250 thousand. Naturally the last thing in this world I would do is seek such power.

The point is that when people's bigotry turns into actions against the rights of other people the use of force to stop them is justified, in my opinion, but only up to the limit of expunging the threat. This is simply a moral fact that can only be properly executed when there is no hate. No hate is required to do what is right. This, in my opinion, is just the sad face of compassion. The innocent must be protected from the insanity acted out side of hate.

pmy: I don't think the poll respondents were being literal, but (in making what they probably know full well is an irrational response to the question) they were expressing a degree of anger and hostility towards those Trump sees as enemies that doesn't bode well.

M: Exactly but what?????? All that you fear will happen happens when the fear it will happen causes it to. What is the point of what I am saying?:

We hate ourselves because we were put down as children. We were made to conform to ideas that are bigotry, made to feel that only those bigots who think the same are the good people and that everybody else deserves the same torture we experienced twisting us into bigots. I am saying that everything we fear is a lie we believe, that what we were made to hate is evil, because what we were made to hate is ourselves. Imagine if people knew they hated themselves, knew it was a lie and said well fuck that, the monster I saw in the other was simply what I felt about myself and it was a lie all this time. Let me step off this wheel of Karma and not add to the hate. There is only love. There is no other answer than not to feed the hate.

I'm not sure why I'm replying. Uneasy about my own motives. Don't think there's much to be gained from the discussion.

But in my view there are two ways of viewing the social world - through an individualist, liberal, psychotheraputic lens or through a political-socio-economic one. And for various reasons I have a strong bias towards the latter. However, it's true that as one gets older one finds that really doesn't explain everything and in dealings with people psychology and individual experiences matter.

My interactions with people on the psychological side of the spectrum have always left me feeling they often come from one limited demographic group and so have no instinctive sense of the political and sociological aspect of things, and often they give the impression that they believe that reality can just be bracketed-out and everything explained by the ideas in people's heads. I find this annoying and alienating.

At the same time, I've known many true-believing very hard-line ideologues who see everything via political theory and who probably would benefit from a smigeon of doubt and a bit of introspection and an acknowledgement that in the end this is about human beings interacting.

Somehow, I guess, one has to keep both those perspectives in one's head simultaneously. But it's still a question of using the right one for the context/domain and I think you are way too far off on one end of that spectrum.

And I don't have any answers, I don't have a clue what the definitive solution to political and economic problems is. I don't find any political philosophy or economic plan hugely convincing. The problems are far greater than any one human brain can figure out, even one much better than mine.

And I don't consider myself a liberal. Growing up, liberals were the enemy (essentially seen as just a weird kind of conservative), and while I've moved a long way to the right [or at least towards doubt and agnosticsm] to the point of being happy to interact with and even agree with liberals, actually calling myself a liberal would stick in my craw.

Also, I'm puzzled by your emphasis on 'bigotry'. I don't see bigotry as being the main issue. It's primarily about a clash of self-interests. But, sure, it can manifest as bigotry in many cases.

 

[Moonbeam]

pmv: I'm not sure why I'm replying. Uneasy about my own motives. Don't think there's much to be gained from the discussion.

M: Well I am glad that you did. I hear you expressing a point of view that somehow causes me to feel some sense of inner pleasure. I don't exactly know how to say, in other words, that I want to complement you for a number of complex reactions I had reading what you said.

pmy: But in my view there are two ways of viewing the social world - through an individualist, liberal, psychotheraputic lens or through a political-socio-economic one.

M: I have a difficulty with people who talk in intellectual terms or ideas or whatever these kinds of words cause me to try to find some label for. Thought for me if trying to find the words that represent what I feel. I don't have this concept of two ways to see the social world, whatever you intend by that. I think I would just say what I feel about the human condition, how I see the world. I don't know or have never thought to divide that into a political or a psychological approach because I think for me that's all the same thing.

pmy: And for various reasons I have a strong bias towards the latter. However, it's true that as one gets older one finds that really doesn't explain everything and in dealings with people psychology and individual experiences matter.

M: I get the idea you are saying you prefer to see things from a different perspective than I do and that you prefer your own way. That seems natural to me. I can respond to anything you might make specific if you wish.

pmy: My interactions with people on the psychological side of the spectrum have always left me feeling they often come from one limited demographic group and so have no instinctive sense of the political and sociological aspect of things, and often they give the impression that they believe that reality can just be bracketed-out and everything explained by the ideas in people's heads. I find this annoying and alienating.

M: Sorry again. I hear words about something but not the something itself. As I said, I don't know what the psychological side of the spectrum is exactly but I especially don't know what is implied by a demographic group. What demographic group. In my case, what I refer to in myself as instinct is based on a feeling that I know nothing having lost all the ideals that used to be sacred to me accompanied by the sense now that all such beliefs are unreal, false, mistaken, etc. So when I hear people say things as if they know them, I have the instant and certain feeling they do not. They just didn't examine and junk what they hold sacred like I did, and, at a very costly and deeply painful price.

pmy: At the same time, I've known many true-believing very hard-line ideologues who see everything via political theory and who probably would benefit from a smigeon of doubt and a bit of introspection and an acknowledgement that in the end this is about human beings interacting.

M: Yes, well for me it is about how human beings interact as they try to retain their sacred cow ideas they really don't need even though they are terrified to let go of them and would rather die than let go of.

pmy: Somehow, I guess, one has to keep both those perspectives in one's head simultaneously. But it's still a question of using the right one for the context/domain and I think you are way too far off on one end of that spectrum.

M: My guess is that I am not exactly on the spectrum. I don't know what others know. I am not emotionally bound to anything.

pmy: And I don't have any answers, I don't have a clue what the definitive solution to political and economic problems is. I don't find any political philosophy or economic plan hugely convincing. The problems are far greater than any one human brain can figure out, even one much better than mine.

M: Well you don't know anything so how can you have answers. To me that is the answer. It is the believers, the knowers, the ones who are certain in the sense that their sacred cows are real that is the problem. If you are not attached to things you don't have to kill anybody or hate anybody for taking from you your huge pile of treasure. You don't have anything to take or to lose.

pmy: And I don't consider myself a liberal. Growing up, liberals were the enemy (essentially seen as just a weird kind of conservative), and while I've moved a long way to the right [or at least towards doubt and agnosticsm] to the point of being happy to interact with and even agree with liberals, actually calling myself a liberal would stick in my craw.

M: I think you may have meant 'moved a long way to the left'. Things stick in our craws if there are assumptions attached to them, memories from the past, thought crystalized into belief.

pmy: Also, I'm puzzled by your emphasis on 'bigotry'. I don't see bigotry as being the main issue. It's primarily about a clash of self-interests. But, sure, it can manifest as bigotry in many cases.

M: Yes, a clash of self interests that are based on bigotry, the belief in your own version of the sacred, the truth that gives your life meaning and destroys it and puts you in prison at the same time. This is all driven by self hate, the need to find personal validation in something external to the self because the self is felt to be worthless and unable to validate anything. To hate yourself is to be a bigot. It is the belief in a lie that we are worthless. It isn't true, it is just a belief based on an unconscious unexamined feeling, like all bigotry is. This can be observed by careful examination of how people with sever low self esteem act, and it can be verified psychoanalytically, by getting to what we feel. But it is very hard to do because it's the last thing in the world we want to know.

If you view humanity as a programmed collection of individuals who suffer from an unconscious state of self hate, it is easy to understand how those machines will act, mechanically, as if asleep.

There are, therefore, no real answers to our problems. They simply are gone when one awakens. Who will do that if he or she defines him or herself by their problems. People do that I think.

 

[pmv]

I think we are just from different worlds, speaking different languages. You don't seem to get what I'm talking about at all, and the feeling is mutual.

But just to be clear on one point - I meant what I said, moved to the right.

Generally the left don't like liberals. The far-left pretty much hate them (perhaps even more so in the past in my country). That I'm OK with many liberals now and happy to concede I can't be sure they are wrong about everything is a sign that I'm some way to the right from how I was raised.

Of course in the UK almost all mainstream politicians now are liberals (e.g. Thatcher, Blair, Clegg - liberals all, only Corbyn and the back-from-the-dead left might not be), whereas in the US your conservatives appear to actually be conservative rather than liberal, so that complicates things.

The other point is the reason I don't just disagree with you completely is that I think there's a bit of truth in there somewhere, in that I've seen what happens when people get the idea that their particular theory is The One True View and forget their opponents are human beings and that nobody is infallible. But it still seems to me you go too far in the other direction.

 

[Moonbeam]

I think we are just from different worlds, speaking different languages. You don't seem to get what I'm talking about at all, and the feeling is mutual.

But just to be clear on one point - I meant what I said, moved to the right.

Generally the left don't like liberals. The far-left pretty much hate them (perhaps even more so in the past in my country). That I'm OK with many liberals now and happy to concede I can't be sure they are wrong about everything is a sign that I'm some way to the right from how I was raised.

Of course in the UK almost all mainstream politicians now are liberals (e.g. Thatcher, Blair, Clegg - liberals all, only Corbyn and the back-from-the-dead left might not be), whereas in the US your conservatives appear to actually be conservative rather than liberal, so that complicates things.

The other point is the reason I don't just disagree with you completely is that I think there's a bit of truth in there somewhere, in that I've seen what happens when people get the idea that their particular theory is The One True View and forget their opponents are human beings and that nobody is infallible. But it still seems to me you go too far in the other direction.

The one true view is what I refer to as bigotry. Take a Bible literalist for example. He or she believes in God, that God is the good and that anything that says there is no God is evil. Such a person thus believes that God and good are the same thing. But a Bible literalist also believes that the Bible is the literal word of God. This is a belief that is the result of conditioning. The Bible is the word of God, God is the good, the Bible says the Bible is the word of God, and so if the Bible is wrong in even the slightest way it can't be the word of God and no good exists. But we know the good exists so for the literalist the Bible must be correct and any loss of that belief would lead to evil. All of this happens because the Bible literalist is not aware of the assumption that the Bible must be true for God to exist. That is pure nonsense and there are plenty of people who believe in God and believe also that the Bible isn't literally true. But if that assumption is in operation, all attempts to suggest that to a literalist will fail.

Not the non believers who believe the good is connected to some other assumptions, conscious or otherwise, can become very agitated by such believers because it is often felt, also at an unconscious level, that a belief in the good based on a literal interpretation of the Bible threatens what they believe the good is. In this way, in the arguing of religious faith, we wind up with a circus.

The way out of this is to understand ones programming, root up and out the unconscious assumptions we make as to what is the good. Any changes you have experienced in your perceptions of the world, I think you will find, are based on a reevaluation of old assumptions giving way to new understanding.

In short, learning, the acquisition of wisdom is a process of unlearning everything in the world we were taught to believe. It requires we die to the good that isn't to the good that is cleared of the assumptions that prevent it's realization.

Our vision of the world is based on what we feel and we do not know what we feel. Our ego identities are based on attachment to things ideas isms etc that we believe at an unconscious level are the good, and we hold on to them intensely because we know there is a good and to lose faith in what we believe would mean that evil wins.

Now the reason I know this is because I experienced the loss of everything I held dear and evil won, but the good reappeared as the one thing at the core of our being that can't be taken by loss of faith. This is what happens with the loss of knowing things. You know one thing and it is good or it is God. It's all an experience that can't be experienced with words.

Anyway, once you see that what people believe they believe because they associate it at an unconscious level with the good, it becomes impossible to hate them. They simply don't see they are attached to false notions out of fear. Once you see it of others you can see it of yourself. There are billions of only truths. What are the odds, and especially when those only truths seem to follow patterns, similar to those we were born into generally speaking.

 

[agent00f]

The one true view is what I refer to as bigotry. Take a Bible literalist for example. He or she believes in God, that God is the good and that anything that says there is no God is evil. Such a person thus believes that God and good are the same thing. But a Bible literalist also believes that the Bible is the literal word of God. This is a belief that is the result of conditioning. The Bible is the word of God, God is the good, the Bible says the Bible is the word of God, and so if the Bible is wrong in even the slightest way it can't be the word of God and no good exists. But we know the good exists so for the literalist the Bible must be correct and any loss of that belief would lead to evil. All of this happens because the Bible literalist is not aware of the assumption that the Bible must be true for God to exist. That is pure nonsense and there are plenty of people who believe in God and believe also that the Bible isn't literally true. But if that assumption is in operation, all attempts to suggest that to a literalist will fail.

Not the non believers who believe the good is connected to some other assumptions, conscious or otherwise, can become very agitated by such believers because it is often felt, also at an unconscious level, that a belief in the good based on a literal interpretation of the Bible threatens what they believe the good is. In this way, in the arguing of religious faith, we wind up with a circus.

The way out of this is to understand ones programming, root up and out the unconscious assumptions we make as to what is the good. Any changes you have experienced in your perceptions of the world, I think you will find, are based on a reevaluation of old assumptions giving way to new understanding.

In short, learning, the acquisition of wisdom is a process of unlearning everything in the world we were taught to believe. It requires we die to the good that isn't to the good that is cleared of the assumptions that prevent it's realization.

Our vision of the world is based on what we feel and we do not know what we feel. Our ego identities are based on attachment to things ideas isms etc that we believe at an unconscious level are the good, and we hold on to them intensely because we know there is a good and to lose faith in what we believe would mean that evil wins.

Now the reason I know this is because I experienced the loss of everything I held dear and evil won, but the good reappeared as the one thing at the core of our being that can't be taken by loss of faith. This is what happens with the loss of knowing things. You know one thing and it is good or it is God. It's all an experience that can't be experienced with words.

Anyway, once you see that what people believe they believe because they associate it at an unconscious level with the good, it becomes impossible to hate them. They simply don't see they are attached to false notions out of fear. Once you see it of others you can see it of yourself. There are billions of only truths. What are the odds, and especially when those only truths seem to follow patterns, similar to those we were born into generally speaking.

Would you say this sort of sermon appeals more to liberals or the sort of people always talking jesus while doing all sorts of degenerate shit? Not hard to see why terrible people, eg nazis/confederates, clutch their bibles. While some see the naked hypocricy, your sorts see it as opportunity.