So Android is just iOS now.
Readit NewsSLWW commented on Google will allow only apps from verified developers to be installed on Android 9to5google.com/2025/08/25... · Posted by u/kotaKat
I think that's one of the many lies you're sold growing up in America. On practice, flag wavers are way now likely to be racists. Church goers are more likely to be racist, less likely to give to charity and more likely to mistreat staff when they're out and about.
Patriotism and religion are both cloths people wrap around themselves to convince themselves they're good people, so that they don't have to actually be good people
I usually find people who oppose the flag to be the "soft" or "virtuous" racist types. The comment about Church goers is also most likely due to where you are. Maybe you should visit a different neighborhood, or you are just assuming every white woman with that "let me speak to the manager" haircut actually goes to Church? (Episcopalian doesn't count; they aren't even a real church/denomination)
Again, you should go out more; for your own health if this is how you see "religious" or "patriotic" people.
And what are the values of the flag?
What do you think? It doesn't take a genius to see the flag stands for a certain set of ideas, maybe start searching in the Constitution if you have questions, the Bill of Rights is excellent reading as well.
I choose not to list them all as I will give plenty of good examples of what this country stands for and I will get side-lined by some pathetic talking point from someone who actually still watches the news like it means anything; or a foreigner who hates my country while their own (typically UK) is failing as we speak. We need to get rid of oligarchs and those who are not of our country if we want those good things to keep going
> During a group date, my date's friend wanted to go to a bar. He asked if I could get in without ID because he didn't think I was living here legally. One moment I felt like I belonged with them. The next, I was reminded that I'm not really part of the group. It made me sad to hear that question.
I'm not sure what type of self-hatred this is. Someone wants to go to a bar, unsure of the legal status of another, color plays a factor but we know nothing about their socioeconomic status or if this writer is in California, the friend of the date asks not as if he is looking for something to get the writer on but rather to make sure they won't have issues. This does not imply anything about his opinions of the writer, and seeing how he is ok with the writer's presence I doubt that this is an issue of "patriotism", it's a legal concern.
Patriotism in America is about uniting under the flag and it's values; it's not about if you are a certain color. There's a reason why we have American patriots of all races; you don't really see that too often in other places. If you don't have those values, then you aren't one of us, that's what patriotism is by definition in this country and our context.
SLWW commented on Why are there so many rationalist cults? asteriskmag.com/issues/11... · Posted by u/glenstein
One of a few issues I have with groups like these, is that they often confidently and aggressively spew a set of beliefs that on their face logically follow from one another, until you realize they are built on a set of axioms that are either entirely untested or outright nonsense. This is common everywhere, but I feel especially pronounced in communities like this. It also involves quite a bit of navel gazing that makes me feel a little sick participating in.
The smartest people I have ever known have been profoundly unsure of their beliefs and what they know. I immediately become suspicious of anyone who is very certain of something, especially if they derived it on their own.
A logical argument is only as good as it's presuppositions. To first lay siege to your own assumptions before reasoning about them tends towards a more beneficial outcome.
Another issue with "thinkers" is that many are cowards; whether they realize it or not a lot of presuppositions are built on a "safe" framework, placing little to no responsibility on the thinker.
> The smartest people I have ever known have been profoundly unsure of their beliefs and what they know. I immediately become suspicious of anyone who is very certain of something, especially if they derived it on their own.
This is where I depart from you. If I say it's anti-intellectual I would only be partially correct, but it's worse than that imo. You might be coming across "smart people" who claim to know nothing "for sure", which in itself is a self-defeating argument. How can you claim that nothing is truly knowable as if you truly know that nothing is knowable? I'm taking these claims to their logical extremes btw, avoiding the granular argumentation surrounding the different shades and levels of doubt; I know that leaves vulnerabilities in my argument, but why argue with those who know that they can't know much of anything as if they know what they are talking about to begin with? They are so defeatist in their own thoughts, it's comical. You say, "profoundly unsure", which reads similarly to me as "can't really ever know" which is a sure truth claim, not a relative claim or a comparative as many would say, which is a sad attempt to side-step the absolute reality of their statement.
I know that I exist, regardless of how I get here I know that I do, there is a ridiculous amount of rhetoric surrounding that claim that I will not argue for here, this is my presupposition. So with that I make an ontological claim, a truth claim, concerning my existence; this claim is one that I must be sure of to operate at any base level. I also believe I am me and not you, or any other. Therefore I believe in one absolute, that "I am me". As such I can claim that an absolute exists, and if absolutes exist, then within the right framework you must also be an absolute to me, and so on and so forth; what I do not see in nature is an existence, or notion of, the relative on it's own as at every relative comparison there is an absolute holding up the comparison. One simple example is heat. Hot is relative, yet it also is objective; some heat can burn you, other heat can burn you over a very long time, some heat will never burn. When something is "too hot" that is a comparative claim, stating that there is another "hot" which is just "hot" or not "hot enough", the absolute still remains which is heat. Relativistic thought is a game of comparisons and relations, not making absolute claims; the only absolute claim is that there is no absolute claim to the relativist. The reason I am talking about relativists is that they are the logical, or illogical, conclusion of the extremes of doubt/disbelief i previously mentioned.
If you know nothing you are not wise, you are lazy and ill-prepared, we know the earth is round, we know that gravity exists, we are aware of the atomic, we are aware of our existence, we are aware that the sun shines it's light upon us, we are sure of many things that took debate among smart people many many years ago to arrive to these sure conclusions. There was a time where many things we accept where "not known" but were observed with enough time and effort by brilliant people. That's why we have scientists, teachers, philosophers and journalists. I encourage you that the next time you find a "smart" person who is unsure of their beliefs, you should kindly encourage them to be less lazy and challenge their absolutes, if they deny the absolute could be found then you aren't dealing with a "smart" person, you are dealing with a useful idiot who spent too much time watching skeptics blather on about meaningless topics until their brains eventually fell out. In every relative claim there must be an absolute or it fails to function in any logical framework. You can with enough thought, good data, and enough time to let things steep find the (or an) absolute and make a sure claim. You might be proven wrong later, but that should be an indicator to you that you should improve (or a warning you are being taken advantage of by a sophist), and that the truth is out there, not to sequester yourself away in this comfortable, unsure hell that many live in till they die.
The beauty of absolute truth is that you can believe absolutes without understanding the entirety of the absolute. I know gravity exists but I don't know fully how it works. Yet I can be absolutely certain it acts upon me, even if I only understand a part of it. People should know what they know and study it until they do and not make sure claims outside of what they do not know until they have the prerequisite absolute claims to support the broader claims with the surety of the weakest of their presuppositions.
Apologies for grammar, length and how schizo my thought process appears; I don't think linearly and it takes a goofy amount of effort to try to collate my thoughts in a sensible manner.
> History is a great example, if you ask an LLM about a vaguely difficult period in history it will just give you one side and act like the other doesn't exist, or if there is another side, it will paint them in a very negative light which often is poorly substantiated
Which is why it's so terribly irresponsible to paint these """AI""" systems as impartial or neutral or anything of the sort, as has been done by hypesters and marketers for the past 3 years.
Couldn't agree more.
However on the bright side people only believe what they want to anyhow, so not much has been lost -_-
What you’re saying is not at all what I understand to be the history of crusading.
Its background is in the Islamic Christian conflicts of Spain. Crusading was adopted from the Muslim idea of Jihad, as we things like naming customs (Spanish are the only Christians who name their children “Jesus”, after the Muslim “Muhammad”).
The political tensions that lead to the first crusade were between Arab Muslims and Byzantine Christian’s. Specifically, the Battle of Mazikirt made Christian Europe seem more vulnerable than it was.
The Papacy wasn’t at the forefront of the struggle against Islam. It was more worried about the Normans, Germans, and Greeks.
When the papacy was interested in Crusading it was for domestic reasons: getting rid of king so-and-so by making him go on crusade.
The situation was different in Spain where Islam was a constant threat, but the Papacy regarded Spain as an exotic foreign land (although Sylvester II was educated there).
It’s extremely misleading to view the pope as the leader of an anti-Muslim coalition. There really was no leader per se, but the reasons why kings went on crusade had little to do with fighting Islam.
Just look at how many monarchs showed up in Jerusalem, then headed straight home and spent the rest of their lives bragging about crusaders.
I’m 80% certain no pope ever set foot in Outremere.
While what you are saying makes a lot of sense, but it seemingly ignores the concerns of a people who, not too long before, had been made aware of the dangerous notion of Muslims having dominion over even an adjacent region to their own. I do know that the Papacy was gaining in power and popularity leading up to the Crusades. As such, and I believe what you say about getting rid of the king to be absolutely true, this is still lacking a component, that being a reason for the populace of Rome to stand behind their new "king".
"We are now expected to believe that the Crusades were an unwarranted act of aggression against a peaceful Muslim world. Hardly. The first call for a crusade occurred in 846 CE, when an Arab expedition to Sicily sailed up the Tiber and sacked St Peter's in Rome. A synod in France issued an appeal to Christian sovereigns to rally against 'the enemies of Christ,' and the pope, Leo IV, offered a heavenly reward to those who died fighting the Muslims. A century and a half and many battles later, in 1096, the Crusaders actually arrived in the Middle East. The Crusades were a late, limited, and unsuccessful imitation of the jihad - an attempt to recover by holy war what was lost by holy war. It failed, and it was not followed up." (Bernard Lewis, 2007 Irving Kristol Lecture, March 7)
Leo IV's actions to fortify after the sacking does show his concerns; with "Leonine City" with calls to invest into this as a means of defense from future incursions. https://dispatch.richmond.edu/1860/12/29/4/93 A decent (Catholic bias) summary which you can find references for fairly easily: https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09159a.htm
unfortunately it's hard to find this pdf without signing up or paying money but there are some useful figures if you scroll down https://www.academia.edu/60028806/The_Surviving_Remains_of_t... Showing the re-enforcement as well as a very clear and obvious purpose to it in light of when it was built.
I would recommend puttering about Lewis' work as well as the likes of Thomas Madden as well. If you are really adventurous you can dig up the likes of Henri Pirenne and his work on the topic; he argues that literate civilization continued in the West up until the arrival of Islam in the 7th century, Islam's blockade, through their piracy, in the Mediterranean being a core contributor in leaving the West in a state of poverty, and when you lose the ability to easily find food usually then literacy is placed on the back burner. Though that's just a tangent for another day, it's very interesting and he presents pretty decent evidence for his suppositions iirc.
Although if Pirenne is correct then the sacking of St. Peters carries a different tone, not one of just a "one off" oopsie but a sign of the intention of a troublesome and destructive new enemy setting their sites on Rome itself, not content to keep to the sea and to the East. It was a clear message to the people that they could be next in line (this is my opinion of course).
If you are American I would simply remind you that even now today you hear cries of a little nation across the sea being an "imminent threat to democracy" while our historic enemies are LITERALLY at our door just South of us and they have been there for several years now sitting in their little bases waiting for something. (I'm unclear as to when exactly it all started) The notion that a Pope could give the people a reason, especially those who have felt the economic pressures, as well as the memory of a raid in their own home by the same aggressors, is possible. Being compelled to engage with an enemy that is a decent distance away is very believable.
People _do_ just wake up one day and decide some piece of land should belong to them, or that they don't have enough money and can take yours, or they are just sick of looking at you and want to be rid of you. They will have some excuse or justification, but really they just want more than they have.
People _do_ just wake up and decide to be evil.
A nation that might fit this description may have had their populace indoctrinated (through a widespread political campaign) to believe that the majority of the world throughout history seeks for their destruction. That's a reason for why they think that way, but not because they woke up one day and decided to choose violence.
However not a justification, since I believe that what is happening today is truly evil. Same with another nation who entered a war knowing they'd be crushed, which is suicide; whether that nation is in the right is of little effect if most of their next generation has died.
You call out that you don’t defend the crusades but are you supportive of Rhodesia?
I only highlighted that I'm not in support of the crusades since it sounds like i might be by my comments. I was highlighting that they didn't just lash out with no cause to start their holy war.
Rhodesia is a hard one; since the more I learn about it the more I feel terrible for both sides; I also do not support terrorism against a nation even if I believe they might not be in the right. However i hold by my disdain for how the British responded/withdrew from them effectively doomed Rhodesia making peaceful resolution essentially impossible.