comment
stringlengths 1
9.9k
| context
sequencelengths 0
835
|
|---|---|
>
I feel like I've seen this movie before... | [
"Here we are again…",
">\n\nSeriously, too few wanted to get frustrated with China the first time around. We go through this again. Will those people learn from a second round of their evasiveness? \nIt was easy to blame the US when slow to roll out attempts to mitigate the disease. But \"zero-Covid\" China couldn't be bothered when people were leaving Wuhan while sick? \nChina, fool me once...",
">\n\nNo domestic travel, but feel free to fly international",
">\n\nIf we have to suffer an economic hit we won’t be the only ones!"
] |
>
What do you expect from the CCP? They were silent at the onset of C19 and they are going to continue to keep the rest of the world in the dark. It would not surprise me if they opened the borders to purposely prolong the pandemic. | [
"Here we are again…",
">\n\nSeriously, too few wanted to get frustrated with China the first time around. We go through this again. Will those people learn from a second round of their evasiveness? \nIt was easy to blame the US when slow to roll out attempts to mitigate the disease. But \"zero-Covid\" China couldn't be bothered when people were leaving Wuhan while sick? \nChina, fool me once...",
">\n\nNo domestic travel, but feel free to fly international",
">\n\nIf we have to suffer an economic hit we won’t be the only ones!",
">\n\nI feel like I've seen this movie before..."
] |
>
They were silent at the onset of C19
Was just thinking it's gone full circle | [
"Here we are again…",
">\n\nSeriously, too few wanted to get frustrated with China the first time around. We go through this again. Will those people learn from a second round of their evasiveness? \nIt was easy to blame the US when slow to roll out attempts to mitigate the disease. But \"zero-Covid\" China couldn't be bothered when people were leaving Wuhan while sick? \nChina, fool me once...",
">\n\nNo domestic travel, but feel free to fly international",
">\n\nIf we have to suffer an economic hit we won’t be the only ones!",
">\n\nI feel like I've seen this movie before...",
">\n\nWhat do you expect from the CCP? They were silent at the onset of C19 and they are going to continue to keep the rest of the world in the dark. It would not surprise me if they opened the borders to purposely prolong the pandemic."
] |
>
Dec 31 2019 they reported 27 cases of respiratory issues. And look what happened. | [
"Here we are again…",
">\n\nSeriously, too few wanted to get frustrated with China the first time around. We go through this again. Will those people learn from a second round of their evasiveness? \nIt was easy to blame the US when slow to roll out attempts to mitigate the disease. But \"zero-Covid\" China couldn't be bothered when people were leaving Wuhan while sick? \nChina, fool me once...",
">\n\nNo domestic travel, but feel free to fly international",
">\n\nIf we have to suffer an economic hit we won’t be the only ones!",
">\n\nI feel like I've seen this movie before...",
">\n\nWhat do you expect from the CCP? They were silent at the onset of C19 and they are going to continue to keep the rest of the world in the dark. It would not surprise me if they opened the borders to purposely prolong the pandemic.",
">\n\n\nThey were silent at the onset of C19\n\nWas just thinking it's gone full circle"
] |
>
HAPPY NEW YEAR 2023 IS GOING TO BE BOMBTASTIC | [
"Here we are again…",
">\n\nSeriously, too few wanted to get frustrated with China the first time around. We go through this again. Will those people learn from a second round of their evasiveness? \nIt was easy to blame the US when slow to roll out attempts to mitigate the disease. But \"zero-Covid\" China couldn't be bothered when people were leaving Wuhan while sick? \nChina, fool me once...",
">\n\nNo domestic travel, but feel free to fly international",
">\n\nIf we have to suffer an economic hit we won’t be the only ones!",
">\n\nI feel like I've seen this movie before...",
">\n\nWhat do you expect from the CCP? They were silent at the onset of C19 and they are going to continue to keep the rest of the world in the dark. It would not surprise me if they opened the borders to purposely prolong the pandemic.",
">\n\n\nThey were silent at the onset of C19\n\nWas just thinking it's gone full circle",
">\n\nDec 31 2019 they reported 27 cases of respiratory issues. And look what happened."
] |
>
There is no transparency in China. It’s not as if anything changed with COVID.. | [
"Here we are again…",
">\n\nSeriously, too few wanted to get frustrated with China the first time around. We go through this again. Will those people learn from a second round of their evasiveness? \nIt was easy to blame the US when slow to roll out attempts to mitigate the disease. But \"zero-Covid\" China couldn't be bothered when people were leaving Wuhan while sick? \nChina, fool me once...",
">\n\nNo domestic travel, but feel free to fly international",
">\n\nIf we have to suffer an economic hit we won’t be the only ones!",
">\n\nI feel like I've seen this movie before...",
">\n\nWhat do you expect from the CCP? They were silent at the onset of C19 and they are going to continue to keep the rest of the world in the dark. It would not surprise me if they opened the borders to purposely prolong the pandemic.",
">\n\n\nThey were silent at the onset of C19\n\nWas just thinking it's gone full circle",
">\n\nDec 31 2019 they reported 27 cases of respiratory issues. And look what happened.",
">\n\nHAPPY NEW YEAR 2023 IS GOING TO BE BOMBTASTIC"
] |
>
Silly Rabbit! Transparency is for their citizens, not the government! | [
"Here we are again…",
">\n\nSeriously, too few wanted to get frustrated with China the first time around. We go through this again. Will those people learn from a second round of their evasiveness? \nIt was easy to blame the US when slow to roll out attempts to mitigate the disease. But \"zero-Covid\" China couldn't be bothered when people were leaving Wuhan while sick? \nChina, fool me once...",
">\n\nNo domestic travel, but feel free to fly international",
">\n\nIf we have to suffer an economic hit we won’t be the only ones!",
">\n\nI feel like I've seen this movie before...",
">\n\nWhat do you expect from the CCP? They were silent at the onset of C19 and they are going to continue to keep the rest of the world in the dark. It would not surprise me if they opened the borders to purposely prolong the pandemic.",
">\n\n\nThey were silent at the onset of C19\n\nWas just thinking it's gone full circle",
">\n\nDec 31 2019 they reported 27 cases of respiratory issues. And look what happened.",
">\n\nHAPPY NEW YEAR 2023 IS GOING TO BE BOMBTASTIC",
">\n\nThere is no transparency in China. It’s not as if anything changed with COVID.."
] |
>
What concerns me is China is a breeding ground for even more variants. | [
"Here we are again…",
">\n\nSeriously, too few wanted to get frustrated with China the first time around. We go through this again. Will those people learn from a second round of their evasiveness? \nIt was easy to blame the US when slow to roll out attempts to mitigate the disease. But \"zero-Covid\" China couldn't be bothered when people were leaving Wuhan while sick? \nChina, fool me once...",
">\n\nNo domestic travel, but feel free to fly international",
">\n\nIf we have to suffer an economic hit we won’t be the only ones!",
">\n\nI feel like I've seen this movie before...",
">\n\nWhat do you expect from the CCP? They were silent at the onset of C19 and they are going to continue to keep the rest of the world in the dark. It would not surprise me if they opened the borders to purposely prolong the pandemic.",
">\n\n\nThey were silent at the onset of C19\n\nWas just thinking it's gone full circle",
">\n\nDec 31 2019 they reported 27 cases of respiratory issues. And look what happened.",
">\n\nHAPPY NEW YEAR 2023 IS GOING TO BE BOMBTASTIC",
">\n\nThere is no transparency in China. It’s not as if anything changed with COVID..",
">\n\nSilly Rabbit! Transparency is for their citizens, not the government!"
] |
>
“China has a population that is very large and there’s limited immunity. And that seems to be the setting in which we may see an explosion of a new variant,” said Dr. Stuart Campbell Ray, an infectious disease expert at Johns Hopkins University. | [
"Here we are again…",
">\n\nSeriously, too few wanted to get frustrated with China the first time around. We go through this again. Will those people learn from a second round of their evasiveness? \nIt was easy to blame the US when slow to roll out attempts to mitigate the disease. But \"zero-Covid\" China couldn't be bothered when people were leaving Wuhan while sick? \nChina, fool me once...",
">\n\nNo domestic travel, but feel free to fly international",
">\n\nIf we have to suffer an economic hit we won’t be the only ones!",
">\n\nI feel like I've seen this movie before...",
">\n\nWhat do you expect from the CCP? They were silent at the onset of C19 and they are going to continue to keep the rest of the world in the dark. It would not surprise me if they opened the borders to purposely prolong the pandemic.",
">\n\n\nThey were silent at the onset of C19\n\nWas just thinking it's gone full circle",
">\n\nDec 31 2019 they reported 27 cases of respiratory issues. And look what happened.",
">\n\nHAPPY NEW YEAR 2023 IS GOING TO BE BOMBTASTIC",
">\n\nThere is no transparency in China. It’s not as if anything changed with COVID..",
">\n\nSilly Rabbit! Transparency is for their citizens, not the government!",
">\n\nWhat concerns me is China is a breeding ground for even more variants."
] |
>
There are new variants all the time, the key topic is around the next thing will be dangerous or not.
Like maybe XBB in the US. | [
"Here we are again…",
">\n\nSeriously, too few wanted to get frustrated with China the first time around. We go through this again. Will those people learn from a second round of their evasiveness? \nIt was easy to blame the US when slow to roll out attempts to mitigate the disease. But \"zero-Covid\" China couldn't be bothered when people were leaving Wuhan while sick? \nChina, fool me once...",
">\n\nNo domestic travel, but feel free to fly international",
">\n\nIf we have to suffer an economic hit we won’t be the only ones!",
">\n\nI feel like I've seen this movie before...",
">\n\nWhat do you expect from the CCP? They were silent at the onset of C19 and they are going to continue to keep the rest of the world in the dark. It would not surprise me if they opened the borders to purposely prolong the pandemic.",
">\n\n\nThey were silent at the onset of C19\n\nWas just thinking it's gone full circle",
">\n\nDec 31 2019 they reported 27 cases of respiratory issues. And look what happened.",
">\n\nHAPPY NEW YEAR 2023 IS GOING TO BE BOMBTASTIC",
">\n\nThere is no transparency in China. It’s not as if anything changed with COVID..",
">\n\nSilly Rabbit! Transparency is for their citizens, not the government!",
">\n\nWhat concerns me is China is a breeding ground for even more variants.",
">\n\n“China has a population that is very large and there’s limited immunity. And that seems to be the setting in which we may see an explosion of a new variant,” said Dr. Stuart Campbell Ray, an infectious disease expert at Johns Hopkins University."
] |
>
They should not be allowed to leave their homeland to potentially spread this all over again throughout the world... The world has had enough. | [
"Here we are again…",
">\n\nSeriously, too few wanted to get frustrated with China the first time around. We go through this again. Will those people learn from a second round of their evasiveness? \nIt was easy to blame the US when slow to roll out attempts to mitigate the disease. But \"zero-Covid\" China couldn't be bothered when people were leaving Wuhan while sick? \nChina, fool me once...",
">\n\nNo domestic travel, but feel free to fly international",
">\n\nIf we have to suffer an economic hit we won’t be the only ones!",
">\n\nI feel like I've seen this movie before...",
">\n\nWhat do you expect from the CCP? They were silent at the onset of C19 and they are going to continue to keep the rest of the world in the dark. It would not surprise me if they opened the borders to purposely prolong the pandemic.",
">\n\n\nThey were silent at the onset of C19\n\nWas just thinking it's gone full circle",
">\n\nDec 31 2019 they reported 27 cases of respiratory issues. And look what happened.",
">\n\nHAPPY NEW YEAR 2023 IS GOING TO BE BOMBTASTIC",
">\n\nThere is no transparency in China. It’s not as if anything changed with COVID..",
">\n\nSilly Rabbit! Transparency is for their citizens, not the government!",
">\n\nWhat concerns me is China is a breeding ground for even more variants.",
">\n\n“China has a population that is very large and there’s limited immunity. And that seems to be the setting in which we may see an explosion of a new variant,” said Dr. Stuart Campbell Ray, an infectious disease expert at Johns Hopkins University.",
">\n\nThere are new variants all the time, the key topic is around the next thing will be dangerous or not.\nLike maybe XBB in the US."
] |
>
Whaddya mean? It's still around, everywhere. Covid hasn't stopped just because the news stopped talking about it. In my country we have a record number of sick in hospitals right now, though thankfully very few in the ICU. | [
"Here we are again…",
">\n\nSeriously, too few wanted to get frustrated with China the first time around. We go through this again. Will those people learn from a second round of their evasiveness? \nIt was easy to blame the US when slow to roll out attempts to mitigate the disease. But \"zero-Covid\" China couldn't be bothered when people were leaving Wuhan while sick? \nChina, fool me once...",
">\n\nNo domestic travel, but feel free to fly international",
">\n\nIf we have to suffer an economic hit we won’t be the only ones!",
">\n\nI feel like I've seen this movie before...",
">\n\nWhat do you expect from the CCP? They were silent at the onset of C19 and they are going to continue to keep the rest of the world in the dark. It would not surprise me if they opened the borders to purposely prolong the pandemic.",
">\n\n\nThey were silent at the onset of C19\n\nWas just thinking it's gone full circle",
">\n\nDec 31 2019 they reported 27 cases of respiratory issues. And look what happened.",
">\n\nHAPPY NEW YEAR 2023 IS GOING TO BE BOMBTASTIC",
">\n\nThere is no transparency in China. It’s not as if anything changed with COVID..",
">\n\nSilly Rabbit! Transparency is for their citizens, not the government!",
">\n\nWhat concerns me is China is a breeding ground for even more variants.",
">\n\n“China has a population that is very large and there’s limited immunity. And that seems to be the setting in which we may see an explosion of a new variant,” said Dr. Stuart Campbell Ray, an infectious disease expert at Johns Hopkins University.",
">\n\nThere are new variants all the time, the key topic is around the next thing will be dangerous or not.\nLike maybe XBB in the US.",
">\n\nThey should not be allowed to leave their homeland to potentially spread this all over again throughout the world... The world has had enough."
] |
>
Ya, but they have about 20% of the global population all packed into one relatively small area. They also have among the lowest rates of people with natural antibodies, due to the strict lockdown measures. They also have ineffective vaccines.
This means it's basically the perfect convergence of circumstances for another variant to emerge. The more viral replication, the more chance of a mutation. If people aren't vaxxed properly, or have never been exposed to it(and thus don't have antibodies), the virus will replicate more, and longer.
So not only is it the fact that it's 20% of the population. And not only is it that they're all tightly packed. And not only is it that the CCP won't inform people about the situation(so if a new variant came out, who the hell knows if they'd even tell us promptly). It's also that their population is especially vulnerable, and thus especially capable of making mutations.
The scariest part is that you know CCP will avoid telling anyone if a mutation arose in their country, even if it means global devastation, because they'd want to blame it on coming from another country, and that would take priority over global health. | [
"Here we are again…",
">\n\nSeriously, too few wanted to get frustrated with China the first time around. We go through this again. Will those people learn from a second round of their evasiveness? \nIt was easy to blame the US when slow to roll out attempts to mitigate the disease. But \"zero-Covid\" China couldn't be bothered when people were leaving Wuhan while sick? \nChina, fool me once...",
">\n\nNo domestic travel, but feel free to fly international",
">\n\nIf we have to suffer an economic hit we won’t be the only ones!",
">\n\nI feel like I've seen this movie before...",
">\n\nWhat do you expect from the CCP? They were silent at the onset of C19 and they are going to continue to keep the rest of the world in the dark. It would not surprise me if they opened the borders to purposely prolong the pandemic.",
">\n\n\nThey were silent at the onset of C19\n\nWas just thinking it's gone full circle",
">\n\nDec 31 2019 they reported 27 cases of respiratory issues. And look what happened.",
">\n\nHAPPY NEW YEAR 2023 IS GOING TO BE BOMBTASTIC",
">\n\nThere is no transparency in China. It’s not as if anything changed with COVID..",
">\n\nSilly Rabbit! Transparency is for their citizens, not the government!",
">\n\nWhat concerns me is China is a breeding ground for even more variants.",
">\n\n“China has a population that is very large and there’s limited immunity. And that seems to be the setting in which we may see an explosion of a new variant,” said Dr. Stuart Campbell Ray, an infectious disease expert at Johns Hopkins University.",
">\n\nThere are new variants all the time, the key topic is around the next thing will be dangerous or not.\nLike maybe XBB in the US.",
">\n\nThey should not be allowed to leave their homeland to potentially spread this all over again throughout the world... The world has had enough.",
">\n\nWhaddya mean? It's still around, everywhere. Covid hasn't stopped just because the news stopped talking about it. In my country we have a record number of sick in hospitals right now, though thankfully very few in the ICU."
] |
>
Viruses have a limit to how much they can develop, no? And the changes that occur to them don't always end up making it worse.
Mutation will happen regardless. Covid isn't going away. | [
"Here we are again…",
">\n\nSeriously, too few wanted to get frustrated with China the first time around. We go through this again. Will those people learn from a second round of their evasiveness? \nIt was easy to blame the US when slow to roll out attempts to mitigate the disease. But \"zero-Covid\" China couldn't be bothered when people were leaving Wuhan while sick? \nChina, fool me once...",
">\n\nNo domestic travel, but feel free to fly international",
">\n\nIf we have to suffer an economic hit we won’t be the only ones!",
">\n\nI feel like I've seen this movie before...",
">\n\nWhat do you expect from the CCP? They were silent at the onset of C19 and they are going to continue to keep the rest of the world in the dark. It would not surprise me if they opened the borders to purposely prolong the pandemic.",
">\n\n\nThey were silent at the onset of C19\n\nWas just thinking it's gone full circle",
">\n\nDec 31 2019 they reported 27 cases of respiratory issues. And look what happened.",
">\n\nHAPPY NEW YEAR 2023 IS GOING TO BE BOMBTASTIC",
">\n\nThere is no transparency in China. It’s not as if anything changed with COVID..",
">\n\nSilly Rabbit! Transparency is for their citizens, not the government!",
">\n\nWhat concerns me is China is a breeding ground for even more variants.",
">\n\n“China has a population that is very large and there’s limited immunity. And that seems to be the setting in which we may see an explosion of a new variant,” said Dr. Stuart Campbell Ray, an infectious disease expert at Johns Hopkins University.",
">\n\nThere are new variants all the time, the key topic is around the next thing will be dangerous or not.\nLike maybe XBB in the US.",
">\n\nThey should not be allowed to leave their homeland to potentially spread this all over again throughout the world... The world has had enough.",
">\n\nWhaddya mean? It's still around, everywhere. Covid hasn't stopped just because the news stopped talking about it. In my country we have a record number of sick in hospitals right now, though thankfully very few in the ICU.",
">\n\nYa, but they have about 20% of the global population all packed into one relatively small area. They also have among the lowest rates of people with natural antibodies, due to the strict lockdown measures. They also have ineffective vaccines.\nThis means it's basically the perfect convergence of circumstances for another variant to emerge. The more viral replication, the more chance of a mutation. If people aren't vaxxed properly, or have never been exposed to it(and thus don't have antibodies), the virus will replicate more, and longer. \nSo not only is it the fact that it's 20% of the population. And not only is it that they're all tightly packed. And not only is it that the CCP won't inform people about the situation(so if a new variant came out, who the hell knows if they'd even tell us promptly). It's also that their population is especially vulnerable, and thus especially capable of making mutations.\nThe scariest part is that you know CCP will avoid telling anyone if a mutation arose in their country, even if it means global devastation, because they'd want to blame it on coming from another country, and that would take priority over global health."
] |
>
Yup, it doesn't always make it worse. But sometimes it does.
Nobody is talking about Covid going away. The problem is if a mutation develops that isn't affected by previous antibodies or vaccines, then we could be back at square 1 again. As long as that doesn't happen it shouldn't be that big of a problem. But if it does happen... it's probably going to happen in China, because that's where the most replication is occurring probably more inside of China than the rest of the world combined right now.
And if a vaccine/antibody resistant variant did mutate... we could probably deal with it... as long as the world knew about it EARLY. The problem is, China would probably hide it, based on their past actions, then try to blame it on one of their enemies. And those weeks/months could end up screwing the world and causing everyone to be caught off guard. | [
"Here we are again…",
">\n\nSeriously, too few wanted to get frustrated with China the first time around. We go through this again. Will those people learn from a second round of their evasiveness? \nIt was easy to blame the US when slow to roll out attempts to mitigate the disease. But \"zero-Covid\" China couldn't be bothered when people were leaving Wuhan while sick? \nChina, fool me once...",
">\n\nNo domestic travel, but feel free to fly international",
">\n\nIf we have to suffer an economic hit we won’t be the only ones!",
">\n\nI feel like I've seen this movie before...",
">\n\nWhat do you expect from the CCP? They were silent at the onset of C19 and they are going to continue to keep the rest of the world in the dark. It would not surprise me if they opened the borders to purposely prolong the pandemic.",
">\n\n\nThey were silent at the onset of C19\n\nWas just thinking it's gone full circle",
">\n\nDec 31 2019 they reported 27 cases of respiratory issues. And look what happened.",
">\n\nHAPPY NEW YEAR 2023 IS GOING TO BE BOMBTASTIC",
">\n\nThere is no transparency in China. It’s not as if anything changed with COVID..",
">\n\nSilly Rabbit! Transparency is for their citizens, not the government!",
">\n\nWhat concerns me is China is a breeding ground for even more variants.",
">\n\n“China has a population that is very large and there’s limited immunity. And that seems to be the setting in which we may see an explosion of a new variant,” said Dr. Stuart Campbell Ray, an infectious disease expert at Johns Hopkins University.",
">\n\nThere are new variants all the time, the key topic is around the next thing will be dangerous or not.\nLike maybe XBB in the US.",
">\n\nThey should not be allowed to leave their homeland to potentially spread this all over again throughout the world... The world has had enough.",
">\n\nWhaddya mean? It's still around, everywhere. Covid hasn't stopped just because the news stopped talking about it. In my country we have a record number of sick in hospitals right now, though thankfully very few in the ICU.",
">\n\nYa, but they have about 20% of the global population all packed into one relatively small area. They also have among the lowest rates of people with natural antibodies, due to the strict lockdown measures. They also have ineffective vaccines.\nThis means it's basically the perfect convergence of circumstances for another variant to emerge. The more viral replication, the more chance of a mutation. If people aren't vaxxed properly, or have never been exposed to it(and thus don't have antibodies), the virus will replicate more, and longer. \nSo not only is it the fact that it's 20% of the population. And not only is it that they're all tightly packed. And not only is it that the CCP won't inform people about the situation(so if a new variant came out, who the hell knows if they'd even tell us promptly). It's also that their population is especially vulnerable, and thus especially capable of making mutations.\nThe scariest part is that you know CCP will avoid telling anyone if a mutation arose in their country, even if it means global devastation, because they'd want to blame it on coming from another country, and that would take priority over global health.",
">\n\nViruses have a limit to how much they can develop, no? And the changes that occur to them don't always end up making it worse.\nMutation will happen regardless. Covid isn't going away."
] |
>
How can there be more replication in 20% of the population than in the remaining 80% of the population...
How is it any different from them opening up on day 1.
Do you know that for a vaccine resistant variant to grow, it would most likely be in a population with high immunity, and given that in China, people have no immunity, the chances of such a variant to emerge are actually low? | [
"Here we are again…",
">\n\nSeriously, too few wanted to get frustrated with China the first time around. We go through this again. Will those people learn from a second round of their evasiveness? \nIt was easy to blame the US when slow to roll out attempts to mitigate the disease. But \"zero-Covid\" China couldn't be bothered when people were leaving Wuhan while sick? \nChina, fool me once...",
">\n\nNo domestic travel, but feel free to fly international",
">\n\nIf we have to suffer an economic hit we won’t be the only ones!",
">\n\nI feel like I've seen this movie before...",
">\n\nWhat do you expect from the CCP? They were silent at the onset of C19 and they are going to continue to keep the rest of the world in the dark. It would not surprise me if they opened the borders to purposely prolong the pandemic.",
">\n\n\nThey were silent at the onset of C19\n\nWas just thinking it's gone full circle",
">\n\nDec 31 2019 they reported 27 cases of respiratory issues. And look what happened.",
">\n\nHAPPY NEW YEAR 2023 IS GOING TO BE BOMBTASTIC",
">\n\nThere is no transparency in China. It’s not as if anything changed with COVID..",
">\n\nSilly Rabbit! Transparency is for their citizens, not the government!",
">\n\nWhat concerns me is China is a breeding ground for even more variants.",
">\n\n“China has a population that is very large and there’s limited immunity. And that seems to be the setting in which we may see an explosion of a new variant,” said Dr. Stuart Campbell Ray, an infectious disease expert at Johns Hopkins University.",
">\n\nThere are new variants all the time, the key topic is around the next thing will be dangerous or not.\nLike maybe XBB in the US.",
">\n\nThey should not be allowed to leave their homeland to potentially spread this all over again throughout the world... The world has had enough.",
">\n\nWhaddya mean? It's still around, everywhere. Covid hasn't stopped just because the news stopped talking about it. In my country we have a record number of sick in hospitals right now, though thankfully very few in the ICU.",
">\n\nYa, but they have about 20% of the global population all packed into one relatively small area. They also have among the lowest rates of people with natural antibodies, due to the strict lockdown measures. They also have ineffective vaccines.\nThis means it's basically the perfect convergence of circumstances for another variant to emerge. The more viral replication, the more chance of a mutation. If people aren't vaxxed properly, or have never been exposed to it(and thus don't have antibodies), the virus will replicate more, and longer. \nSo not only is it the fact that it's 20% of the population. And not only is it that they're all tightly packed. And not only is it that the CCP won't inform people about the situation(so if a new variant came out, who the hell knows if they'd even tell us promptly). It's also that their population is especially vulnerable, and thus especially capable of making mutations.\nThe scariest part is that you know CCP will avoid telling anyone if a mutation arose in their country, even if it means global devastation, because they'd want to blame it on coming from another country, and that would take priority over global health.",
">\n\nViruses have a limit to how much they can develop, no? And the changes that occur to them don't always end up making it worse.\nMutation will happen regardless. Covid isn't going away.",
">\n\nYup, it doesn't always make it worse. But sometimes it does.\nNobody is talking about Covid going away. The problem is if a mutation develops that isn't affected by previous antibodies or vaccines, then we could be back at square 1 again. As long as that doesn't happen it shouldn't be that big of a problem. But if it does happen... it's probably going to happen in China, because that's where the most replication is occurring probably more inside of China than the rest of the world combined right now.\nAnd if a vaccine/antibody resistant variant did mutate... we could probably deal with it... as long as the world knew about it EARLY. The problem is, China would probably hide it, based on their past actions, then try to blame it on one of their enemies. And those weeks/months could end up screwing the world and causing everyone to be caught off guard."
] |
>
China only shares when it's someone else sharing something to them. | [
"Here we are again…",
">\n\nSeriously, too few wanted to get frustrated with China the first time around. We go through this again. Will those people learn from a second round of their evasiveness? \nIt was easy to blame the US when slow to roll out attempts to mitigate the disease. But \"zero-Covid\" China couldn't be bothered when people were leaving Wuhan while sick? \nChina, fool me once...",
">\n\nNo domestic travel, but feel free to fly international",
">\n\nIf we have to suffer an economic hit we won’t be the only ones!",
">\n\nI feel like I've seen this movie before...",
">\n\nWhat do you expect from the CCP? They were silent at the onset of C19 and they are going to continue to keep the rest of the world in the dark. It would not surprise me if they opened the borders to purposely prolong the pandemic.",
">\n\n\nThey were silent at the onset of C19\n\nWas just thinking it's gone full circle",
">\n\nDec 31 2019 they reported 27 cases of respiratory issues. And look what happened.",
">\n\nHAPPY NEW YEAR 2023 IS GOING TO BE BOMBTASTIC",
">\n\nThere is no transparency in China. It’s not as if anything changed with COVID..",
">\n\nSilly Rabbit! Transparency is for their citizens, not the government!",
">\n\nWhat concerns me is China is a breeding ground for even more variants.",
">\n\n“China has a population that is very large and there’s limited immunity. And that seems to be the setting in which we may see an explosion of a new variant,” said Dr. Stuart Campbell Ray, an infectious disease expert at Johns Hopkins University.",
">\n\nThere are new variants all the time, the key topic is around the next thing will be dangerous or not.\nLike maybe XBB in the US.",
">\n\nThey should not be allowed to leave their homeland to potentially spread this all over again throughout the world... The world has had enough.",
">\n\nWhaddya mean? It's still around, everywhere. Covid hasn't stopped just because the news stopped talking about it. In my country we have a record number of sick in hospitals right now, though thankfully very few in the ICU.",
">\n\nYa, but they have about 20% of the global population all packed into one relatively small area. They also have among the lowest rates of people with natural antibodies, due to the strict lockdown measures. They also have ineffective vaccines.\nThis means it's basically the perfect convergence of circumstances for another variant to emerge. The more viral replication, the more chance of a mutation. If people aren't vaxxed properly, or have never been exposed to it(and thus don't have antibodies), the virus will replicate more, and longer. \nSo not only is it the fact that it's 20% of the population. And not only is it that they're all tightly packed. And not only is it that the CCP won't inform people about the situation(so if a new variant came out, who the hell knows if they'd even tell us promptly). It's also that their population is especially vulnerable, and thus especially capable of making mutations.\nThe scariest part is that you know CCP will avoid telling anyone if a mutation arose in their country, even if it means global devastation, because they'd want to blame it on coming from another country, and that would take priority over global health.",
">\n\nViruses have a limit to how much they can develop, no? And the changes that occur to them don't always end up making it worse.\nMutation will happen regardless. Covid isn't going away.",
">\n\nYup, it doesn't always make it worse. But sometimes it does.\nNobody is talking about Covid going away. The problem is if a mutation develops that isn't affected by previous antibodies or vaccines, then we could be back at square 1 again. As long as that doesn't happen it shouldn't be that big of a problem. But if it does happen... it's probably going to happen in China, because that's where the most replication is occurring probably more inside of China than the rest of the world combined right now.\nAnd if a vaccine/antibody resistant variant did mutate... we could probably deal with it... as long as the world knew about it EARLY. The problem is, China would probably hide it, based on their past actions, then try to blame it on one of their enemies. And those weeks/months could end up screwing the world and causing everyone to be caught off guard.",
">\n\nHow can there be more replication in 20% of the population than in the remaining 80% of the population...\nHow is it any different from them opening up on day 1.\nDo you know that for a vaccine resistant variant to grow, it would most likely be in a population with high immunity, and given that in China, people have no immunity, the chances of such a variant to emerge are actually low?"
] |
>
Xi Jinping going all in on giving us the Xi variant after all | [
"Here we are again…",
">\n\nSeriously, too few wanted to get frustrated with China the first time around. We go through this again. Will those people learn from a second round of their evasiveness? \nIt was easy to blame the US when slow to roll out attempts to mitigate the disease. But \"zero-Covid\" China couldn't be bothered when people were leaving Wuhan while sick? \nChina, fool me once...",
">\n\nNo domestic travel, but feel free to fly international",
">\n\nIf we have to suffer an economic hit we won’t be the only ones!",
">\n\nI feel like I've seen this movie before...",
">\n\nWhat do you expect from the CCP? They were silent at the onset of C19 and they are going to continue to keep the rest of the world in the dark. It would not surprise me if they opened the borders to purposely prolong the pandemic.",
">\n\n\nThey were silent at the onset of C19\n\nWas just thinking it's gone full circle",
">\n\nDec 31 2019 they reported 27 cases of respiratory issues. And look what happened.",
">\n\nHAPPY NEW YEAR 2023 IS GOING TO BE BOMBTASTIC",
">\n\nThere is no transparency in China. It’s not as if anything changed with COVID..",
">\n\nSilly Rabbit! Transparency is for their citizens, not the government!",
">\n\nWhat concerns me is China is a breeding ground for even more variants.",
">\n\n“China has a population that is very large and there’s limited immunity. And that seems to be the setting in which we may see an explosion of a new variant,” said Dr. Stuart Campbell Ray, an infectious disease expert at Johns Hopkins University.",
">\n\nThere are new variants all the time, the key topic is around the next thing will be dangerous or not.\nLike maybe XBB in the US.",
">\n\nThey should not be allowed to leave their homeland to potentially spread this all over again throughout the world... The world has had enough.",
">\n\nWhaddya mean? It's still around, everywhere. Covid hasn't stopped just because the news stopped talking about it. In my country we have a record number of sick in hospitals right now, though thankfully very few in the ICU.",
">\n\nYa, but they have about 20% of the global population all packed into one relatively small area. They also have among the lowest rates of people with natural antibodies, due to the strict lockdown measures. They also have ineffective vaccines.\nThis means it's basically the perfect convergence of circumstances for another variant to emerge. The more viral replication, the more chance of a mutation. If people aren't vaxxed properly, or have never been exposed to it(and thus don't have antibodies), the virus will replicate more, and longer. \nSo not only is it the fact that it's 20% of the population. And not only is it that they're all tightly packed. And not only is it that the CCP won't inform people about the situation(so if a new variant came out, who the hell knows if they'd even tell us promptly). It's also that their population is especially vulnerable, and thus especially capable of making mutations.\nThe scariest part is that you know CCP will avoid telling anyone if a mutation arose in their country, even if it means global devastation, because they'd want to blame it on coming from another country, and that would take priority over global health.",
">\n\nViruses have a limit to how much they can develop, no? And the changes that occur to them don't always end up making it worse.\nMutation will happen regardless. Covid isn't going away.",
">\n\nYup, it doesn't always make it worse. But sometimes it does.\nNobody is talking about Covid going away. The problem is if a mutation develops that isn't affected by previous antibodies or vaccines, then we could be back at square 1 again. As long as that doesn't happen it shouldn't be that big of a problem. But if it does happen... it's probably going to happen in China, because that's where the most replication is occurring probably more inside of China than the rest of the world combined right now.\nAnd if a vaccine/antibody resistant variant did mutate... we could probably deal with it... as long as the world knew about it EARLY. The problem is, China would probably hide it, based on their past actions, then try to blame it on one of their enemies. And those weeks/months could end up screwing the world and causing everyone to be caught off guard.",
">\n\nHow can there be more replication in 20% of the population than in the remaining 80% of the population...\nHow is it any different from them opening up on day 1.\nDo you know that for a vaccine resistant variant to grow, it would most likely be in a population with high immunity, and given that in China, people have no immunity, the chances of such a variant to emerge are actually low?",
">\n\nChina only shares when it's someone else sharing something to them."
] |
>
If it was going well would they be quiet? | [
"Here we are again…",
">\n\nSeriously, too few wanted to get frustrated with China the first time around. We go through this again. Will those people learn from a second round of their evasiveness? \nIt was easy to blame the US when slow to roll out attempts to mitigate the disease. But \"zero-Covid\" China couldn't be bothered when people were leaving Wuhan while sick? \nChina, fool me once...",
">\n\nNo domestic travel, but feel free to fly international",
">\n\nIf we have to suffer an economic hit we won’t be the only ones!",
">\n\nI feel like I've seen this movie before...",
">\n\nWhat do you expect from the CCP? They were silent at the onset of C19 and they are going to continue to keep the rest of the world in the dark. It would not surprise me if they opened the borders to purposely prolong the pandemic.",
">\n\n\nThey were silent at the onset of C19\n\nWas just thinking it's gone full circle",
">\n\nDec 31 2019 they reported 27 cases of respiratory issues. And look what happened.",
">\n\nHAPPY NEW YEAR 2023 IS GOING TO BE BOMBTASTIC",
">\n\nThere is no transparency in China. It’s not as if anything changed with COVID..",
">\n\nSilly Rabbit! Transparency is for their citizens, not the government!",
">\n\nWhat concerns me is China is a breeding ground for even more variants.",
">\n\n“China has a population that is very large and there’s limited immunity. And that seems to be the setting in which we may see an explosion of a new variant,” said Dr. Stuart Campbell Ray, an infectious disease expert at Johns Hopkins University.",
">\n\nThere are new variants all the time, the key topic is around the next thing will be dangerous or not.\nLike maybe XBB in the US.",
">\n\nThey should not be allowed to leave their homeland to potentially spread this all over again throughout the world... The world has had enough.",
">\n\nWhaddya mean? It's still around, everywhere. Covid hasn't stopped just because the news stopped talking about it. In my country we have a record number of sick in hospitals right now, though thankfully very few in the ICU.",
">\n\nYa, but they have about 20% of the global population all packed into one relatively small area. They also have among the lowest rates of people with natural antibodies, due to the strict lockdown measures. They also have ineffective vaccines.\nThis means it's basically the perfect convergence of circumstances for another variant to emerge. The more viral replication, the more chance of a mutation. If people aren't vaxxed properly, or have never been exposed to it(and thus don't have antibodies), the virus will replicate more, and longer. \nSo not only is it the fact that it's 20% of the population. And not only is it that they're all tightly packed. And not only is it that the CCP won't inform people about the situation(so if a new variant came out, who the hell knows if they'd even tell us promptly). It's also that their population is especially vulnerable, and thus especially capable of making mutations.\nThe scariest part is that you know CCP will avoid telling anyone if a mutation arose in their country, even if it means global devastation, because they'd want to blame it on coming from another country, and that would take priority over global health.",
">\n\nViruses have a limit to how much they can develop, no? And the changes that occur to them don't always end up making it worse.\nMutation will happen regardless. Covid isn't going away.",
">\n\nYup, it doesn't always make it worse. But sometimes it does.\nNobody is talking about Covid going away. The problem is if a mutation develops that isn't affected by previous antibodies or vaccines, then we could be back at square 1 again. As long as that doesn't happen it shouldn't be that big of a problem. But if it does happen... it's probably going to happen in China, because that's where the most replication is occurring probably more inside of China than the rest of the world combined right now.\nAnd if a vaccine/antibody resistant variant did mutate... we could probably deal with it... as long as the world knew about it EARLY. The problem is, China would probably hide it, based on their past actions, then try to blame it on one of their enemies. And those weeks/months could end up screwing the world and causing everyone to be caught off guard.",
">\n\nHow can there be more replication in 20% of the population than in the remaining 80% of the population...\nHow is it any different from them opening up on day 1.\nDo you know that for a vaccine resistant variant to grow, it would most likely be in a population with high immunity, and given that in China, people have no immunity, the chances of such a variant to emerge are actually low?",
">\n\nChina only shares when it's someone else sharing something to them.",
">\n\nXi Jinping going all in on giving us the Xi variant after all"
] |
>
We know it came from there the first time and they did this shit. At this point they need to be called out. | [
"Here we are again…",
">\n\nSeriously, too few wanted to get frustrated with China the first time around. We go through this again. Will those people learn from a second round of their evasiveness? \nIt was easy to blame the US when slow to roll out attempts to mitigate the disease. But \"zero-Covid\" China couldn't be bothered when people were leaving Wuhan while sick? \nChina, fool me once...",
">\n\nNo domestic travel, but feel free to fly international",
">\n\nIf we have to suffer an economic hit we won’t be the only ones!",
">\n\nI feel like I've seen this movie before...",
">\n\nWhat do you expect from the CCP? They were silent at the onset of C19 and they are going to continue to keep the rest of the world in the dark. It would not surprise me if they opened the borders to purposely prolong the pandemic.",
">\n\n\nThey were silent at the onset of C19\n\nWas just thinking it's gone full circle",
">\n\nDec 31 2019 they reported 27 cases of respiratory issues. And look what happened.",
">\n\nHAPPY NEW YEAR 2023 IS GOING TO BE BOMBTASTIC",
">\n\nThere is no transparency in China. It’s not as if anything changed with COVID..",
">\n\nSilly Rabbit! Transparency is for their citizens, not the government!",
">\n\nWhat concerns me is China is a breeding ground for even more variants.",
">\n\n“China has a population that is very large and there’s limited immunity. And that seems to be the setting in which we may see an explosion of a new variant,” said Dr. Stuart Campbell Ray, an infectious disease expert at Johns Hopkins University.",
">\n\nThere are new variants all the time, the key topic is around the next thing will be dangerous or not.\nLike maybe XBB in the US.",
">\n\nThey should not be allowed to leave their homeland to potentially spread this all over again throughout the world... The world has had enough.",
">\n\nWhaddya mean? It's still around, everywhere. Covid hasn't stopped just because the news stopped talking about it. In my country we have a record number of sick in hospitals right now, though thankfully very few in the ICU.",
">\n\nYa, but they have about 20% of the global population all packed into one relatively small area. They also have among the lowest rates of people with natural antibodies, due to the strict lockdown measures. They also have ineffective vaccines.\nThis means it's basically the perfect convergence of circumstances for another variant to emerge. The more viral replication, the more chance of a mutation. If people aren't vaxxed properly, or have never been exposed to it(and thus don't have antibodies), the virus will replicate more, and longer. \nSo not only is it the fact that it's 20% of the population. And not only is it that they're all tightly packed. And not only is it that the CCP won't inform people about the situation(so if a new variant came out, who the hell knows if they'd even tell us promptly). It's also that their population is especially vulnerable, and thus especially capable of making mutations.\nThe scariest part is that you know CCP will avoid telling anyone if a mutation arose in their country, even if it means global devastation, because they'd want to blame it on coming from another country, and that would take priority over global health.",
">\n\nViruses have a limit to how much they can develop, no? And the changes that occur to them don't always end up making it worse.\nMutation will happen regardless. Covid isn't going away.",
">\n\nYup, it doesn't always make it worse. But sometimes it does.\nNobody is talking about Covid going away. The problem is if a mutation develops that isn't affected by previous antibodies or vaccines, then we could be back at square 1 again. As long as that doesn't happen it shouldn't be that big of a problem. But if it does happen... it's probably going to happen in China, because that's where the most replication is occurring probably more inside of China than the rest of the world combined right now.\nAnd if a vaccine/antibody resistant variant did mutate... we could probably deal with it... as long as the world knew about it EARLY. The problem is, China would probably hide it, based on their past actions, then try to blame it on one of their enemies. And those weeks/months could end up screwing the world and causing everyone to be caught off guard.",
">\n\nHow can there be more replication in 20% of the population than in the remaining 80% of the population...\nHow is it any different from them opening up on day 1.\nDo you know that for a vaccine resistant variant to grow, it would most likely be in a population with high immunity, and given that in China, people have no immunity, the chances of such a variant to emerge are actually low?",
">\n\nChina only shares when it's someone else sharing something to them.",
">\n\nXi Jinping going all in on giving us the Xi variant after all",
">\n\nIf it was going well would they be quiet?"
] |
>
I think it's naive of us to think China would be any different - selfish | [
"Here we are again…",
">\n\nSeriously, too few wanted to get frustrated with China the first time around. We go through this again. Will those people learn from a second round of their evasiveness? \nIt was easy to blame the US when slow to roll out attempts to mitigate the disease. But \"zero-Covid\" China couldn't be bothered when people were leaving Wuhan while sick? \nChina, fool me once...",
">\n\nNo domestic travel, but feel free to fly international",
">\n\nIf we have to suffer an economic hit we won’t be the only ones!",
">\n\nI feel like I've seen this movie before...",
">\n\nWhat do you expect from the CCP? They were silent at the onset of C19 and they are going to continue to keep the rest of the world in the dark. It would not surprise me if they opened the borders to purposely prolong the pandemic.",
">\n\n\nThey were silent at the onset of C19\n\nWas just thinking it's gone full circle",
">\n\nDec 31 2019 they reported 27 cases of respiratory issues. And look what happened.",
">\n\nHAPPY NEW YEAR 2023 IS GOING TO BE BOMBTASTIC",
">\n\nThere is no transparency in China. It’s not as if anything changed with COVID..",
">\n\nSilly Rabbit! Transparency is for their citizens, not the government!",
">\n\nWhat concerns me is China is a breeding ground for even more variants.",
">\n\n“China has a population that is very large and there’s limited immunity. And that seems to be the setting in which we may see an explosion of a new variant,” said Dr. Stuart Campbell Ray, an infectious disease expert at Johns Hopkins University.",
">\n\nThere are new variants all the time, the key topic is around the next thing will be dangerous or not.\nLike maybe XBB in the US.",
">\n\nThey should not be allowed to leave their homeland to potentially spread this all over again throughout the world... The world has had enough.",
">\n\nWhaddya mean? It's still around, everywhere. Covid hasn't stopped just because the news stopped talking about it. In my country we have a record number of sick in hospitals right now, though thankfully very few in the ICU.",
">\n\nYa, but they have about 20% of the global population all packed into one relatively small area. They also have among the lowest rates of people with natural antibodies, due to the strict lockdown measures. They also have ineffective vaccines.\nThis means it's basically the perfect convergence of circumstances for another variant to emerge. The more viral replication, the more chance of a mutation. If people aren't vaxxed properly, or have never been exposed to it(and thus don't have antibodies), the virus will replicate more, and longer. \nSo not only is it the fact that it's 20% of the population. And not only is it that they're all tightly packed. And not only is it that the CCP won't inform people about the situation(so if a new variant came out, who the hell knows if they'd even tell us promptly). It's also that their population is especially vulnerable, and thus especially capable of making mutations.\nThe scariest part is that you know CCP will avoid telling anyone if a mutation arose in their country, even if it means global devastation, because they'd want to blame it on coming from another country, and that would take priority over global health.",
">\n\nViruses have a limit to how much they can develop, no? And the changes that occur to them don't always end up making it worse.\nMutation will happen regardless. Covid isn't going away.",
">\n\nYup, it doesn't always make it worse. But sometimes it does.\nNobody is talking about Covid going away. The problem is if a mutation develops that isn't affected by previous antibodies or vaccines, then we could be back at square 1 again. As long as that doesn't happen it shouldn't be that big of a problem. But if it does happen... it's probably going to happen in China, because that's where the most replication is occurring probably more inside of China than the rest of the world combined right now.\nAnd if a vaccine/antibody resistant variant did mutate... we could probably deal with it... as long as the world knew about it EARLY. The problem is, China would probably hide it, based on their past actions, then try to blame it on one of their enemies. And those weeks/months could end up screwing the world and causing everyone to be caught off guard.",
">\n\nHow can there be more replication in 20% of the population than in the remaining 80% of the population...\nHow is it any different from them opening up on day 1.\nDo you know that for a vaccine resistant variant to grow, it would most likely be in a population with high immunity, and given that in China, people have no immunity, the chances of such a variant to emerge are actually low?",
">\n\nChina only shares when it's someone else sharing something to them.",
">\n\nXi Jinping going all in on giving us the Xi variant after all",
">\n\nIf it was going well would they be quiet?",
">\n\nWe know it came from there the first time and they did this shit. At this point they need to be called out."
] |
>
Mind you own business! 😉 | [
"Here we are again…",
">\n\nSeriously, too few wanted to get frustrated with China the first time around. We go through this again. Will those people learn from a second round of their evasiveness? \nIt was easy to blame the US when slow to roll out attempts to mitigate the disease. But \"zero-Covid\" China couldn't be bothered when people were leaving Wuhan while sick? \nChina, fool me once...",
">\n\nNo domestic travel, but feel free to fly international",
">\n\nIf we have to suffer an economic hit we won’t be the only ones!",
">\n\nI feel like I've seen this movie before...",
">\n\nWhat do you expect from the CCP? They were silent at the onset of C19 and they are going to continue to keep the rest of the world in the dark. It would not surprise me if they opened the borders to purposely prolong the pandemic.",
">\n\n\nThey were silent at the onset of C19\n\nWas just thinking it's gone full circle",
">\n\nDec 31 2019 they reported 27 cases of respiratory issues. And look what happened.",
">\n\nHAPPY NEW YEAR 2023 IS GOING TO BE BOMBTASTIC",
">\n\nThere is no transparency in China. It’s not as if anything changed with COVID..",
">\n\nSilly Rabbit! Transparency is for their citizens, not the government!",
">\n\nWhat concerns me is China is a breeding ground for even more variants.",
">\n\n“China has a population that is very large and there’s limited immunity. And that seems to be the setting in which we may see an explosion of a new variant,” said Dr. Stuart Campbell Ray, an infectious disease expert at Johns Hopkins University.",
">\n\nThere are new variants all the time, the key topic is around the next thing will be dangerous or not.\nLike maybe XBB in the US.",
">\n\nThey should not be allowed to leave their homeland to potentially spread this all over again throughout the world... The world has had enough.",
">\n\nWhaddya mean? It's still around, everywhere. Covid hasn't stopped just because the news stopped talking about it. In my country we have a record number of sick in hospitals right now, though thankfully very few in the ICU.",
">\n\nYa, but they have about 20% of the global population all packed into one relatively small area. They also have among the lowest rates of people with natural antibodies, due to the strict lockdown measures. They also have ineffective vaccines.\nThis means it's basically the perfect convergence of circumstances for another variant to emerge. The more viral replication, the more chance of a mutation. If people aren't vaxxed properly, or have never been exposed to it(and thus don't have antibodies), the virus will replicate more, and longer. \nSo not only is it the fact that it's 20% of the population. And not only is it that they're all tightly packed. And not only is it that the CCP won't inform people about the situation(so if a new variant came out, who the hell knows if they'd even tell us promptly). It's also that their population is especially vulnerable, and thus especially capable of making mutations.\nThe scariest part is that you know CCP will avoid telling anyone if a mutation arose in their country, even if it means global devastation, because they'd want to blame it on coming from another country, and that would take priority over global health.",
">\n\nViruses have a limit to how much they can develop, no? And the changes that occur to them don't always end up making it worse.\nMutation will happen regardless. Covid isn't going away.",
">\n\nYup, it doesn't always make it worse. But sometimes it does.\nNobody is talking about Covid going away. The problem is if a mutation develops that isn't affected by previous antibodies or vaccines, then we could be back at square 1 again. As long as that doesn't happen it shouldn't be that big of a problem. But if it does happen... it's probably going to happen in China, because that's where the most replication is occurring probably more inside of China than the rest of the world combined right now.\nAnd if a vaccine/antibody resistant variant did mutate... we could probably deal with it... as long as the world knew about it EARLY. The problem is, China would probably hide it, based on their past actions, then try to blame it on one of their enemies. And those weeks/months could end up screwing the world and causing everyone to be caught off guard.",
">\n\nHow can there be more replication in 20% of the population than in the remaining 80% of the population...\nHow is it any different from them opening up on day 1.\nDo you know that for a vaccine resistant variant to grow, it would most likely be in a population with high immunity, and given that in China, people have no immunity, the chances of such a variant to emerge are actually low?",
">\n\nChina only shares when it's someone else sharing something to them.",
">\n\nXi Jinping going all in on giving us the Xi variant after all",
">\n\nIf it was going well would they be quiet?",
">\n\nWe know it came from there the first time and they did this shit. At this point they need to be called out.",
">\n\nI think it's naive of us to think China would be any different - selfish"
] |
> | [
"Here we are again…",
">\n\nSeriously, too few wanted to get frustrated with China the first time around. We go through this again. Will those people learn from a second round of their evasiveness? \nIt was easy to blame the US when slow to roll out attempts to mitigate the disease. But \"zero-Covid\" China couldn't be bothered when people were leaving Wuhan while sick? \nChina, fool me once...",
">\n\nNo domestic travel, but feel free to fly international",
">\n\nIf we have to suffer an economic hit we won’t be the only ones!",
">\n\nI feel like I've seen this movie before...",
">\n\nWhat do you expect from the CCP? They were silent at the onset of C19 and they are going to continue to keep the rest of the world in the dark. It would not surprise me if they opened the borders to purposely prolong the pandemic.",
">\n\n\nThey were silent at the onset of C19\n\nWas just thinking it's gone full circle",
">\n\nDec 31 2019 they reported 27 cases of respiratory issues. And look what happened.",
">\n\nHAPPY NEW YEAR 2023 IS GOING TO BE BOMBTASTIC",
">\n\nThere is no transparency in China. It’s not as if anything changed with COVID..",
">\n\nSilly Rabbit! Transparency is for their citizens, not the government!",
">\n\nWhat concerns me is China is a breeding ground for even more variants.",
">\n\n“China has a population that is very large and there’s limited immunity. And that seems to be the setting in which we may see an explosion of a new variant,” said Dr. Stuart Campbell Ray, an infectious disease expert at Johns Hopkins University.",
">\n\nThere are new variants all the time, the key topic is around the next thing will be dangerous or not.\nLike maybe XBB in the US.",
">\n\nThey should not be allowed to leave their homeland to potentially spread this all over again throughout the world... The world has had enough.",
">\n\nWhaddya mean? It's still around, everywhere. Covid hasn't stopped just because the news stopped talking about it. In my country we have a record number of sick in hospitals right now, though thankfully very few in the ICU.",
">\n\nYa, but they have about 20% of the global population all packed into one relatively small area. They also have among the lowest rates of people with natural antibodies, due to the strict lockdown measures. They also have ineffective vaccines.\nThis means it's basically the perfect convergence of circumstances for another variant to emerge. The more viral replication, the more chance of a mutation. If people aren't vaxxed properly, or have never been exposed to it(and thus don't have antibodies), the virus will replicate more, and longer. \nSo not only is it the fact that it's 20% of the population. And not only is it that they're all tightly packed. And not only is it that the CCP won't inform people about the situation(so if a new variant came out, who the hell knows if they'd even tell us promptly). It's also that their population is especially vulnerable, and thus especially capable of making mutations.\nThe scariest part is that you know CCP will avoid telling anyone if a mutation arose in their country, even if it means global devastation, because they'd want to blame it on coming from another country, and that would take priority over global health.",
">\n\nViruses have a limit to how much they can develop, no? And the changes that occur to them don't always end up making it worse.\nMutation will happen regardless. Covid isn't going away.",
">\n\nYup, it doesn't always make it worse. But sometimes it does.\nNobody is talking about Covid going away. The problem is if a mutation develops that isn't affected by previous antibodies or vaccines, then we could be back at square 1 again. As long as that doesn't happen it shouldn't be that big of a problem. But if it does happen... it's probably going to happen in China, because that's where the most replication is occurring probably more inside of China than the rest of the world combined right now.\nAnd if a vaccine/antibody resistant variant did mutate... we could probably deal with it... as long as the world knew about it EARLY. The problem is, China would probably hide it, based on their past actions, then try to blame it on one of their enemies. And those weeks/months could end up screwing the world and causing everyone to be caught off guard.",
">\n\nHow can there be more replication in 20% of the population than in the remaining 80% of the population...\nHow is it any different from them opening up on day 1.\nDo you know that for a vaccine resistant variant to grow, it would most likely be in a population with high immunity, and given that in China, people have no immunity, the chances of such a variant to emerge are actually low?",
">\n\nChina only shares when it's someone else sharing something to them.",
">\n\nXi Jinping going all in on giving us the Xi variant after all",
">\n\nIf it was going well would they be quiet?",
">\n\nWe know it came from there the first time and they did this shit. At this point they need to be called out.",
">\n\nI think it's naive of us to think China would be any different - selfish",
">\n\nMind you own business! 😉"
] |
Luis Fernando Camacho is an ultranationalist who made backroom deals with the coup leader Jeanine Añez for his party to be in the cabinet. This is not exactly surprising that he continues to stir up shit. | [] |
>
And with verifiable links to fascist groups. They probably were just waiting for Bolsonaro to be down so Brazil wouldn't protest the house cleaning. | [
"Luis Fernando Camacho is an ultranationalist who made backroom deals with the coup leader Jeanine Añez for his party to be in the cabinet. This is not exactly surprising that he continues to stir up shit."
] |
>
This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 82%. (I'm a bot)
Camacho led protests this year demanding a new population census that will likely increase the opposition stronghold's representation in the national legislature, and grant it greater access to state funds.
Camacho, who leads the second-largest opposition bloc in parliament, came third in presidential elections in October 2020, which were won by leftist Luis Arce, a Morales protege.
After learning of Camacho's arrest, supporters barricaded streets in Santa Cruz with paving stones, tree branches and vehicles to demand his release.
Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Camacho^#1 Morales^#2 Santa^#3 support^#4 protests^#5 | [
"Luis Fernando Camacho is an ultranationalist who made backroom deals with the coup leader Jeanine Añez for his party to be in the cabinet. This is not exactly surprising that he continues to stir up shit.",
">\n\nAnd with verifiable links to fascist groups. They probably were just waiting for Bolsonaro to be down so Brazil wouldn't protest the house cleaning."
] |
>
nothing suspicious here... | [
"Luis Fernando Camacho is an ultranationalist who made backroom deals with the coup leader Jeanine Añez for his party to be in the cabinet. This is not exactly surprising that he continues to stir up shit.",
">\n\nAnd with verifiable links to fascist groups. They probably were just waiting for Bolsonaro to be down so Brazil wouldn't protest the house cleaning.",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 82%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nCamacho led protests this year demanding a new population census that will likely increase the opposition stronghold's representation in the national legislature, and grant it greater access to state funds.\nCamacho, who leads the second-largest opposition bloc in parliament, came third in presidential elections in October 2020, which were won by leftist Luis Arce, a Morales protege.\nAfter learning of Camacho's arrest, supporters barricaded streets in Santa Cruz with paving stones, tree branches and vehicles to demand his release.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Camacho^#1 Morales^#2 Santa^#3 support^#4 protests^#5"
] |
> | [
"Luis Fernando Camacho is an ultranationalist who made backroom deals with the coup leader Jeanine Añez for his party to be in the cabinet. This is not exactly surprising that he continues to stir up shit.",
">\n\nAnd with verifiable links to fascist groups. They probably were just waiting for Bolsonaro to be down so Brazil wouldn't protest the house cleaning.",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 82%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\nCamacho led protests this year demanding a new population census that will likely increase the opposition stronghold's representation in the national legislature, and grant it greater access to state funds.\nCamacho, who leads the second-largest opposition bloc in parliament, came third in presidential elections in October 2020, which were won by leftist Luis Arce, a Morales protege.\nAfter learning of Camacho's arrest, supporters barricaded streets in Santa Cruz with paving stones, tree branches and vehicles to demand his release.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Camacho^#1 Morales^#2 Santa^#3 support^#4 protests^#5",
">\n\nnothing suspicious here..."
] |
What a idiot just put him out of his misery and save air and money | [] |
>
Yeah. A violent criminal in the country ILLEGALLY who's been deported a few times previously. Damn...I'm so glad the borders are secure. What a God damn joke | [
"What a idiot just put him out of his misery and save air and money"
] |
> | [
"What a idiot just put him out of his misery and save air and money",
">\n\nYeah. A violent criminal in the country ILLEGALLY who's been deported a few times previously. Damn...I'm so glad the borders are secure. What a God damn joke"
] |
Some people say tragedy builds character. I believe that tragedy reveals character. And this dude's character has been revealed as top notch. | [] |
>
This is why buffalo is the city of good neighbors | [
"Some people say tragedy builds character. I believe that tragedy reveals character. And this dude's character has been revealed as top notch."
] |
>
I've heard of it raining cats and dogs, but a buffalo blizzard is something else. | [
"Some people say tragedy builds character. I believe that tragedy reveals character. And this dude's character has been revealed as top notch.",
">\n\nThis is why buffalo is the city of good neighbors"
] |
>
You are joking, but I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes a common term. | [
"Some people say tragedy builds character. I believe that tragedy reveals character. And this dude's character has been revealed as top notch.",
">\n\nThis is why buffalo is the city of good neighbors",
">\n\nI've heard of it raining cats and dogs, but a buffalo blizzard is something else."
] |
>
I'm not a prepper by any means, but everyone should have enough food and supplies to be able to hunker down for at least 3 days. Especially if you live in the north. | [
"Some people say tragedy builds character. I believe that tragedy reveals character. And this dude's character has been revealed as top notch.",
">\n\nThis is why buffalo is the city of good neighbors",
">\n\nI've heard of it raining cats and dogs, but a buffalo blizzard is something else.",
">\n\nYou are joking, but I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes a common term."
] |
>
I'm not a prepper either, but isn't it pretty normal to have various pasta, grains and cans and maybe even some stuff in the freezer? I try not to stock up too much, but our family could probably easily survive for 2 weeks if we are being a little creative with the stuff we have. | [
"Some people say tragedy builds character. I believe that tragedy reveals character. And this dude's character has been revealed as top notch.",
">\n\nThis is why buffalo is the city of good neighbors",
">\n\nI've heard of it raining cats and dogs, but a buffalo blizzard is something else.",
">\n\nYou are joking, but I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes a common term.",
">\n\nI'm not a prepper by any means, but everyone should have enough food and supplies to be able to hunker down for at least 3 days. Especially if you live in the north."
] |
>
It's not as normal as you think. That's why people are going hungry. At least one fatality was a man getting groceries for his family.
It's looked down upon as "weird" and nutty to have a prepper mentality. I got downvoted to shit in a previous thread for saying that it's a good time to be a survivalist in Buffalo right now.... That doesn't just include having food stored, but also potable (drinkable) water, fuel, and generators. | [
"Some people say tragedy builds character. I believe that tragedy reveals character. And this dude's character has been revealed as top notch.",
">\n\nThis is why buffalo is the city of good neighbors",
">\n\nI've heard of it raining cats and dogs, but a buffalo blizzard is something else.",
">\n\nYou are joking, but I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes a common term.",
">\n\nI'm not a prepper by any means, but everyone should have enough food and supplies to be able to hunker down for at least 3 days. Especially if you live in the north.",
">\n\nI'm not a prepper either, but isn't it pretty normal to have various pasta, grains and cans and maybe even some stuff in the freezer? I try not to stock up too much, but our family could probably easily survive for 2 weeks if we are being a little creative with the stuff we have."
] |
>
Bless this man and his amazing heart! | [
"Some people say tragedy builds character. I believe that tragedy reveals character. And this dude's character has been revealed as top notch.",
">\n\nThis is why buffalo is the city of good neighbors",
">\n\nI've heard of it raining cats and dogs, but a buffalo blizzard is something else.",
">\n\nYou are joking, but I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes a common term.",
">\n\nI'm not a prepper by any means, but everyone should have enough food and supplies to be able to hunker down for at least 3 days. Especially if you live in the north.",
">\n\nI'm not a prepper either, but isn't it pretty normal to have various pasta, grains and cans and maybe even some stuff in the freezer? I try not to stock up too much, but our family could probably easily survive for 2 weeks if we are being a little creative with the stuff we have.",
">\n\nIt's not as normal as you think. That's why people are going hungry. At least one fatality was a man getting groceries for his family. \nIt's looked down upon as \"weird\" and nutty to have a prepper mentality. I got downvoted to shit in a previous thread for saying that it's a good time to be a survivalist in Buffalo right now.... That doesn't just include having food stored, but also potable (drinkable) water, fuel, and generators."
] |
>
Merry belated Christmas and Happy New Year! | [
"Some people say tragedy builds character. I believe that tragedy reveals character. And this dude's character has been revealed as top notch.",
">\n\nThis is why buffalo is the city of good neighbors",
">\n\nI've heard of it raining cats and dogs, but a buffalo blizzard is something else.",
">\n\nYou are joking, but I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes a common term.",
">\n\nI'm not a prepper by any means, but everyone should have enough food and supplies to be able to hunker down for at least 3 days. Especially if you live in the north.",
">\n\nI'm not a prepper either, but isn't it pretty normal to have various pasta, grains and cans and maybe even some stuff in the freezer? I try not to stock up too much, but our family could probably easily survive for 2 weeks if we are being a little creative with the stuff we have.",
">\n\nIt's not as normal as you think. That's why people are going hungry. At least one fatality was a man getting groceries for his family. \nIt's looked down upon as \"weird\" and nutty to have a prepper mentality. I got downvoted to shit in a previous thread for saying that it's a good time to be a survivalist in Buffalo right now.... That doesn't just include having food stored, but also potable (drinkable) water, fuel, and generators.",
">\n\nBless this man and his amazing heart!"
] |
>
Lol why ares you getting soo many downvotes?? | [
"Some people say tragedy builds character. I believe that tragedy reveals character. And this dude's character has been revealed as top notch.",
">\n\nThis is why buffalo is the city of good neighbors",
">\n\nI've heard of it raining cats and dogs, but a buffalo blizzard is something else.",
">\n\nYou are joking, but I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes a common term.",
">\n\nI'm not a prepper by any means, but everyone should have enough food and supplies to be able to hunker down for at least 3 days. Especially if you live in the north.",
">\n\nI'm not a prepper either, but isn't it pretty normal to have various pasta, grains and cans and maybe even some stuff in the freezer? I try not to stock up too much, but our family could probably easily survive for 2 weeks if we are being a little creative with the stuff we have.",
">\n\nIt's not as normal as you think. That's why people are going hungry. At least one fatality was a man getting groceries for his family. \nIt's looked down upon as \"weird\" and nutty to have a prepper mentality. I got downvoted to shit in a previous thread for saying that it's a good time to be a survivalist in Buffalo right now.... That doesn't just include having food stored, but also potable (drinkable) water, fuel, and generators.",
">\n\nBless this man and his amazing heart!",
">\n\nMerry belated Christmas and Happy New Year!"
] |
>
Maybe they're unironically offended by "Merry Christmas."
Edit: Can someone explain what you all are so upset about? Genuinely curious. | [
"Some people say tragedy builds character. I believe that tragedy reveals character. And this dude's character has been revealed as top notch.",
">\n\nThis is why buffalo is the city of good neighbors",
">\n\nI've heard of it raining cats and dogs, but a buffalo blizzard is something else.",
">\n\nYou are joking, but I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes a common term.",
">\n\nI'm not a prepper by any means, but everyone should have enough food and supplies to be able to hunker down for at least 3 days. Especially if you live in the north.",
">\n\nI'm not a prepper either, but isn't it pretty normal to have various pasta, grains and cans and maybe even some stuff in the freezer? I try not to stock up too much, but our family could probably easily survive for 2 weeks if we are being a little creative with the stuff we have.",
">\n\nIt's not as normal as you think. That's why people are going hungry. At least one fatality was a man getting groceries for his family. \nIt's looked down upon as \"weird\" and nutty to have a prepper mentality. I got downvoted to shit in a previous thread for saying that it's a good time to be a survivalist in Buffalo right now.... That doesn't just include having food stored, but also potable (drinkable) water, fuel, and generators.",
">\n\nBless this man and his amazing heart!",
">\n\nMerry belated Christmas and Happy New Year!",
">\n\nLol why ares you getting soo many downvotes??"
] |
>
The other heroes are the people working at the store | [
"Some people say tragedy builds character. I believe that tragedy reveals character. And this dude's character has been revealed as top notch.",
">\n\nThis is why buffalo is the city of good neighbors",
">\n\nI've heard of it raining cats and dogs, but a buffalo blizzard is something else.",
">\n\nYou are joking, but I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes a common term.",
">\n\nI'm not a prepper by any means, but everyone should have enough food and supplies to be able to hunker down for at least 3 days. Especially if you live in the north.",
">\n\nI'm not a prepper either, but isn't it pretty normal to have various pasta, grains and cans and maybe even some stuff in the freezer? I try not to stock up too much, but our family could probably easily survive for 2 weeks if we are being a little creative with the stuff we have.",
">\n\nIt's not as normal as you think. That's why people are going hungry. At least one fatality was a man getting groceries for his family. \nIt's looked down upon as \"weird\" and nutty to have a prepper mentality. I got downvoted to shit in a previous thread for saying that it's a good time to be a survivalist in Buffalo right now.... That doesn't just include having food stored, but also potable (drinkable) water, fuel, and generators.",
">\n\nBless this man and his amazing heart!",
">\n\nMerry belated Christmas and Happy New Year!",
">\n\nLol why ares you getting soo many downvotes??",
">\n\nMaybe they're unironically offended by \"Merry Christmas.\" \nEdit: Can someone explain what you all are so upset about? Genuinely curious."
] |
>
On Friday(December 23, for people who view this comment in the future), near the end of my shift(at my local grocery store, while it was still blowing quite hard, people would drive in this weather, just to buy a large bottle of Whisky, or a 24 pack of beer. | [
"Some people say tragedy builds character. I believe that tragedy reveals character. And this dude's character has been revealed as top notch.",
">\n\nThis is why buffalo is the city of good neighbors",
">\n\nI've heard of it raining cats and dogs, but a buffalo blizzard is something else.",
">\n\nYou are joking, but I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes a common term.",
">\n\nI'm not a prepper by any means, but everyone should have enough food and supplies to be able to hunker down for at least 3 days. Especially if you live in the north.",
">\n\nI'm not a prepper either, but isn't it pretty normal to have various pasta, grains and cans and maybe even some stuff in the freezer? I try not to stock up too much, but our family could probably easily survive for 2 weeks if we are being a little creative with the stuff we have.",
">\n\nIt's not as normal as you think. That's why people are going hungry. At least one fatality was a man getting groceries for his family. \nIt's looked down upon as \"weird\" and nutty to have a prepper mentality. I got downvoted to shit in a previous thread for saying that it's a good time to be a survivalist in Buffalo right now.... That doesn't just include having food stored, but also potable (drinkable) water, fuel, and generators.",
">\n\nBless this man and his amazing heart!",
">\n\nMerry belated Christmas and Happy New Year!",
">\n\nLol why ares you getting soo many downvotes??",
">\n\nMaybe they're unironically offended by \"Merry Christmas.\" \nEdit: Can someone explain what you all are so upset about? Genuinely curious.",
">\n\nThe other heroes are the people working at the store"
] |
>
Some of the people trying to help are getting $1000 tickets for driving during a travel ban. | [
"Some people say tragedy builds character. I believe that tragedy reveals character. And this dude's character has been revealed as top notch.",
">\n\nThis is why buffalo is the city of good neighbors",
">\n\nI've heard of it raining cats and dogs, but a buffalo blizzard is something else.",
">\n\nYou are joking, but I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes a common term.",
">\n\nI'm not a prepper by any means, but everyone should have enough food and supplies to be able to hunker down for at least 3 days. Especially if you live in the north.",
">\n\nI'm not a prepper either, but isn't it pretty normal to have various pasta, grains and cans and maybe even some stuff in the freezer? I try not to stock up too much, but our family could probably easily survive for 2 weeks if we are being a little creative with the stuff we have.",
">\n\nIt's not as normal as you think. That's why people are going hungry. At least one fatality was a man getting groceries for his family. \nIt's looked down upon as \"weird\" and nutty to have a prepper mentality. I got downvoted to shit in a previous thread for saying that it's a good time to be a survivalist in Buffalo right now.... That doesn't just include having food stored, but also potable (drinkable) water, fuel, and generators.",
">\n\nBless this man and his amazing heart!",
">\n\nMerry belated Christmas and Happy New Year!",
">\n\nLol why ares you getting soo many downvotes??",
">\n\nMaybe they're unironically offended by \"Merry Christmas.\" \nEdit: Can someone explain what you all are so upset about? Genuinely curious.",
">\n\nThe other heroes are the people working at the store",
">\n\nOn Friday(December 23, for people who view this comment in the future), near the end of my shift(at my local grocery store, while it was still blowing quite hard, people would drive in this weather, just to buy a large bottle of Whisky, or a 24 pack of beer."
] |
>
I wonder why the local PD doesn't temporarily deputize the people who want to help and delegate specific tasks to them instead of punishing them for getting in the way. | [
"Some people say tragedy builds character. I believe that tragedy reveals character. And this dude's character has been revealed as top notch.",
">\n\nThis is why buffalo is the city of good neighbors",
">\n\nI've heard of it raining cats and dogs, but a buffalo blizzard is something else.",
">\n\nYou are joking, but I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes a common term.",
">\n\nI'm not a prepper by any means, but everyone should have enough food and supplies to be able to hunker down for at least 3 days. Especially if you live in the north.",
">\n\nI'm not a prepper either, but isn't it pretty normal to have various pasta, grains and cans and maybe even some stuff in the freezer? I try not to stock up too much, but our family could probably easily survive for 2 weeks if we are being a little creative with the stuff we have.",
">\n\nIt's not as normal as you think. That's why people are going hungry. At least one fatality was a man getting groceries for his family. \nIt's looked down upon as \"weird\" and nutty to have a prepper mentality. I got downvoted to shit in a previous thread for saying that it's a good time to be a survivalist in Buffalo right now.... That doesn't just include having food stored, but also potable (drinkable) water, fuel, and generators.",
">\n\nBless this man and his amazing heart!",
">\n\nMerry belated Christmas and Happy New Year!",
">\n\nLol why ares you getting soo many downvotes??",
">\n\nMaybe they're unironically offended by \"Merry Christmas.\" \nEdit: Can someone explain what you all are so upset about? Genuinely curious.",
">\n\nThe other heroes are the people working at the store",
">\n\nOn Friday(December 23, for people who view this comment in the future), near the end of my shift(at my local grocery store, while it was still blowing quite hard, people would drive in this weather, just to buy a large bottle of Whisky, or a 24 pack of beer.",
">\n\nSome of the people trying to help are getting $1000 tickets for driving during a travel ban."
] |
>
Liability. Sending untrained people into extreme weather is a recipe for disaster | [
"Some people say tragedy builds character. I believe that tragedy reveals character. And this dude's character has been revealed as top notch.",
">\n\nThis is why buffalo is the city of good neighbors",
">\n\nI've heard of it raining cats and dogs, but a buffalo blizzard is something else.",
">\n\nYou are joking, but I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes a common term.",
">\n\nI'm not a prepper by any means, but everyone should have enough food and supplies to be able to hunker down for at least 3 days. Especially if you live in the north.",
">\n\nI'm not a prepper either, but isn't it pretty normal to have various pasta, grains and cans and maybe even some stuff in the freezer? I try not to stock up too much, but our family could probably easily survive for 2 weeks if we are being a little creative with the stuff we have.",
">\n\nIt's not as normal as you think. That's why people are going hungry. At least one fatality was a man getting groceries for his family. \nIt's looked down upon as \"weird\" and nutty to have a prepper mentality. I got downvoted to shit in a previous thread for saying that it's a good time to be a survivalist in Buffalo right now.... That doesn't just include having food stored, but also potable (drinkable) water, fuel, and generators.",
">\n\nBless this man and his amazing heart!",
">\n\nMerry belated Christmas and Happy New Year!",
">\n\nLol why ares you getting soo many downvotes??",
">\n\nMaybe they're unironically offended by \"Merry Christmas.\" \nEdit: Can someone explain what you all are so upset about? Genuinely curious.",
">\n\nThe other heroes are the people working at the store",
">\n\nOn Friday(December 23, for people who view this comment in the future), near the end of my shift(at my local grocery store, while it was still blowing quite hard, people would drive in this weather, just to buy a large bottle of Whisky, or a 24 pack of beer.",
">\n\nSome of the people trying to help are getting $1000 tickets for driving during a travel ban.",
">\n\nI wonder why the local PD doesn't temporarily deputize the people who want to help and delegate specific tasks to them instead of punishing them for getting in the way."
] |
>
Surely there must be a legal framework in place for a liability waiver in situations like these. Have no police departments ever deputized people in an emergency at any point in history? Is there no precedent to follow? | [
"Some people say tragedy builds character. I believe that tragedy reveals character. And this dude's character has been revealed as top notch.",
">\n\nThis is why buffalo is the city of good neighbors",
">\n\nI've heard of it raining cats and dogs, but a buffalo blizzard is something else.",
">\n\nYou are joking, but I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes a common term.",
">\n\nI'm not a prepper by any means, but everyone should have enough food and supplies to be able to hunker down for at least 3 days. Especially if you live in the north.",
">\n\nI'm not a prepper either, but isn't it pretty normal to have various pasta, grains and cans and maybe even some stuff in the freezer? I try not to stock up too much, but our family could probably easily survive for 2 weeks if we are being a little creative with the stuff we have.",
">\n\nIt's not as normal as you think. That's why people are going hungry. At least one fatality was a man getting groceries for his family. \nIt's looked down upon as \"weird\" and nutty to have a prepper mentality. I got downvoted to shit in a previous thread for saying that it's a good time to be a survivalist in Buffalo right now.... That doesn't just include having food stored, but also potable (drinkable) water, fuel, and generators.",
">\n\nBless this man and his amazing heart!",
">\n\nMerry belated Christmas and Happy New Year!",
">\n\nLol why ares you getting soo many downvotes??",
">\n\nMaybe they're unironically offended by \"Merry Christmas.\" \nEdit: Can someone explain what you all are so upset about? Genuinely curious.",
">\n\nThe other heroes are the people working at the store",
">\n\nOn Friday(December 23, for people who view this comment in the future), near the end of my shift(at my local grocery store, while it was still blowing quite hard, people would drive in this weather, just to buy a large bottle of Whisky, or a 24 pack of beer.",
">\n\nSome of the people trying to help are getting $1000 tickets for driving during a travel ban.",
">\n\nI wonder why the local PD doesn't temporarily deputize the people who want to help and delegate specific tasks to them instead of punishing them for getting in the way.",
">\n\nLiability. Sending untrained people into extreme weather is a recipe for disaster"
] |
>
I don't think there is precedence. A Sheriff and the US Marshals can deputize, and if my understanding is correct the Sheriff is allowed to do that because they are elected directly by the people (in the case of Sheriffs). Interesting topic though.
Edit: A US Marshal could deputize because their (main) function is as officers of a court, executing orders that already cleared the judicial system (is what I gather as to why). Nowadays only the Director of the USMS deputizes, and only does so for law enforcement not in the USMS or private security for courtroom security. They also deputize US Attorney personnel in the DoJ to give nationwide clearance to carry firearms under LEOSA
As for state/local level law enforcement, across the board sheriffs can deputize. Depending on the state, other law enforcement personnel can deputize, but it is subject to different standards/requirements.
Reading New York law on who is considered a "peace officer" (a list of people with law enforcement capacity of some sort), the town/city/county can appoint someone as a "harbor master" with no state level criteria. This would make them a peace officer as defined by the state, and be a defacto deputization. BUT, this is basically rules lawyering and there might be a relevant law i'm missing. | [
"Some people say tragedy builds character. I believe that tragedy reveals character. And this dude's character has been revealed as top notch.",
">\n\nThis is why buffalo is the city of good neighbors",
">\n\nI've heard of it raining cats and dogs, but a buffalo blizzard is something else.",
">\n\nYou are joking, but I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes a common term.",
">\n\nI'm not a prepper by any means, but everyone should have enough food and supplies to be able to hunker down for at least 3 days. Especially if you live in the north.",
">\n\nI'm not a prepper either, but isn't it pretty normal to have various pasta, grains and cans and maybe even some stuff in the freezer? I try not to stock up too much, but our family could probably easily survive for 2 weeks if we are being a little creative with the stuff we have.",
">\n\nIt's not as normal as you think. That's why people are going hungry. At least one fatality was a man getting groceries for his family. \nIt's looked down upon as \"weird\" and nutty to have a prepper mentality. I got downvoted to shit in a previous thread for saying that it's a good time to be a survivalist in Buffalo right now.... That doesn't just include having food stored, but also potable (drinkable) water, fuel, and generators.",
">\n\nBless this man and his amazing heart!",
">\n\nMerry belated Christmas and Happy New Year!",
">\n\nLol why ares you getting soo many downvotes??",
">\n\nMaybe they're unironically offended by \"Merry Christmas.\" \nEdit: Can someone explain what you all are so upset about? Genuinely curious.",
">\n\nThe other heroes are the people working at the store",
">\n\nOn Friday(December 23, for people who view this comment in the future), near the end of my shift(at my local grocery store, while it was still blowing quite hard, people would drive in this weather, just to buy a large bottle of Whisky, or a 24 pack of beer.",
">\n\nSome of the people trying to help are getting $1000 tickets for driving during a travel ban.",
">\n\nI wonder why the local PD doesn't temporarily deputize the people who want to help and delegate specific tasks to them instead of punishing them for getting in the way.",
">\n\nLiability. Sending untrained people into extreme weather is a recipe for disaster",
">\n\nSurely there must be a legal framework in place for a liability waiver in situations like these. Have no police departments ever deputized people in an emergency at any point in history? Is there no precedent to follow?"
] |
>
So is the county sheriff not involved in the emergency response to this storm at all? | [
"Some people say tragedy builds character. I believe that tragedy reveals character. And this dude's character has been revealed as top notch.",
">\n\nThis is why buffalo is the city of good neighbors",
">\n\nI've heard of it raining cats and dogs, but a buffalo blizzard is something else.",
">\n\nYou are joking, but I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes a common term.",
">\n\nI'm not a prepper by any means, but everyone should have enough food and supplies to be able to hunker down for at least 3 days. Especially if you live in the north.",
">\n\nI'm not a prepper either, but isn't it pretty normal to have various pasta, grains and cans and maybe even some stuff in the freezer? I try not to stock up too much, but our family could probably easily survive for 2 weeks if we are being a little creative with the stuff we have.",
">\n\nIt's not as normal as you think. That's why people are going hungry. At least one fatality was a man getting groceries for his family. \nIt's looked down upon as \"weird\" and nutty to have a prepper mentality. I got downvoted to shit in a previous thread for saying that it's a good time to be a survivalist in Buffalo right now.... That doesn't just include having food stored, but also potable (drinkable) water, fuel, and generators.",
">\n\nBless this man and his amazing heart!",
">\n\nMerry belated Christmas and Happy New Year!",
">\n\nLol why ares you getting soo many downvotes??",
">\n\nMaybe they're unironically offended by \"Merry Christmas.\" \nEdit: Can someone explain what you all are so upset about? Genuinely curious.",
">\n\nThe other heroes are the people working at the store",
">\n\nOn Friday(December 23, for people who view this comment in the future), near the end of my shift(at my local grocery store, while it was still blowing quite hard, people would drive in this weather, just to buy a large bottle of Whisky, or a 24 pack of beer.",
">\n\nSome of the people trying to help are getting $1000 tickets for driving during a travel ban.",
">\n\nI wonder why the local PD doesn't temporarily deputize the people who want to help and delegate specific tasks to them instead of punishing them for getting in the way.",
">\n\nLiability. Sending untrained people into extreme weather is a recipe for disaster",
">\n\nSurely there must be a legal framework in place for a liability waiver in situations like these. Have no police departments ever deputized people in an emergency at any point in history? Is there no precedent to follow?",
">\n\nI don't think there is precedence. A Sheriff and the US Marshals can deputize, and if my understanding is correct the Sheriff is allowed to do that because they are elected directly by the people (in the case of Sheriffs). Interesting topic though. \nEdit: A US Marshal could deputize because their (main) function is as officers of a court, executing orders that already cleared the judicial system (is what I gather as to why). Nowadays only the Director of the USMS deputizes, and only does so for law enforcement not in the USMS or private security for courtroom security. They also deputize US Attorney personnel in the DoJ to give nationwide clearance to carry firearms under LEOSA\nAs for state/local level law enforcement, across the board sheriffs can deputize. Depending on the state, other law enforcement personnel can deputize, but it is subject to different standards/requirements. \nReading New York law on who is considered a \"peace officer\" (a list of people with law enforcement capacity of some sort), the town/city/county can appoint someone as a \"harbor master\" with no state level criteria. This would make them a peace officer as defined by the state, and be a defacto deputization. BUT, this is basically rules lawyering and there might be a relevant law i'm missing."
] |
>
Read the edit for some interesting info, but to answer your question: I don't know for Buffalo specifically. Each office is different, it's something I'll have to research.
Not all sheriff offices are "law enforcement", many are only officers of the court like US marshals. They do things such as staff jails, guard courthouses, etc. There are 3 main types of offices: Restricted, Limited, and Full service. Restricted and Limited are the aforementioned offices that have limited duty/jurisdiction, where I live (St. Louis) the Sheriff wouldn't be involved in this type of situation.
Edit: Alongside being appointed Harbor Masters, I also see a way for defacto deputization by the Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority in compliance with New York law. This one is interesting as the NFTA is a privatized public corporation like the US Postal Service.
Edit #2: So to answer your original question, there are many ways the state/local police can defacto deputize a citizen in New York, if not for the local Sheriff. Non-Sheriff/US marshal deputization has now piqued my interest, as my original generalization that there is no precedent is not so cut and dry. | [
"Some people say tragedy builds character. I believe that tragedy reveals character. And this dude's character has been revealed as top notch.",
">\n\nThis is why buffalo is the city of good neighbors",
">\n\nI've heard of it raining cats and dogs, but a buffalo blizzard is something else.",
">\n\nYou are joking, but I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes a common term.",
">\n\nI'm not a prepper by any means, but everyone should have enough food and supplies to be able to hunker down for at least 3 days. Especially if you live in the north.",
">\n\nI'm not a prepper either, but isn't it pretty normal to have various pasta, grains and cans and maybe even some stuff in the freezer? I try not to stock up too much, but our family could probably easily survive for 2 weeks if we are being a little creative with the stuff we have.",
">\n\nIt's not as normal as you think. That's why people are going hungry. At least one fatality was a man getting groceries for his family. \nIt's looked down upon as \"weird\" and nutty to have a prepper mentality. I got downvoted to shit in a previous thread for saying that it's a good time to be a survivalist in Buffalo right now.... That doesn't just include having food stored, but also potable (drinkable) water, fuel, and generators.",
">\n\nBless this man and his amazing heart!",
">\n\nMerry belated Christmas and Happy New Year!",
">\n\nLol why ares you getting soo many downvotes??",
">\n\nMaybe they're unironically offended by \"Merry Christmas.\" \nEdit: Can someone explain what you all are so upset about? Genuinely curious.",
">\n\nThe other heroes are the people working at the store",
">\n\nOn Friday(December 23, for people who view this comment in the future), near the end of my shift(at my local grocery store, while it was still blowing quite hard, people would drive in this weather, just to buy a large bottle of Whisky, or a 24 pack of beer.",
">\n\nSome of the people trying to help are getting $1000 tickets for driving during a travel ban.",
">\n\nI wonder why the local PD doesn't temporarily deputize the people who want to help and delegate specific tasks to them instead of punishing them for getting in the way.",
">\n\nLiability. Sending untrained people into extreme weather is a recipe for disaster",
">\n\nSurely there must be a legal framework in place for a liability waiver in situations like these. Have no police departments ever deputized people in an emergency at any point in history? Is there no precedent to follow?",
">\n\nI don't think there is precedence. A Sheriff and the US Marshals can deputize, and if my understanding is correct the Sheriff is allowed to do that because they are elected directly by the people (in the case of Sheriffs). Interesting topic though. \nEdit: A US Marshal could deputize because their (main) function is as officers of a court, executing orders that already cleared the judicial system (is what I gather as to why). Nowadays only the Director of the USMS deputizes, and only does so for law enforcement not in the USMS or private security for courtroom security. They also deputize US Attorney personnel in the DoJ to give nationwide clearance to carry firearms under LEOSA\nAs for state/local level law enforcement, across the board sheriffs can deputize. Depending on the state, other law enforcement personnel can deputize, but it is subject to different standards/requirements. \nReading New York law on who is considered a \"peace officer\" (a list of people with law enforcement capacity of some sort), the town/city/county can appoint someone as a \"harbor master\" with no state level criteria. This would make them a peace officer as defined by the state, and be a defacto deputization. BUT, this is basically rules lawyering and there might be a relevant law i'm missing.",
">\n\nSo is the county sheriff not involved in the emergency response to this storm at all?"
] |
>
Very interesting. I appreciate you sharing your research on the matter. | [
"Some people say tragedy builds character. I believe that tragedy reveals character. And this dude's character has been revealed as top notch.",
">\n\nThis is why buffalo is the city of good neighbors",
">\n\nI've heard of it raining cats and dogs, but a buffalo blizzard is something else.",
">\n\nYou are joking, but I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes a common term.",
">\n\nI'm not a prepper by any means, but everyone should have enough food and supplies to be able to hunker down for at least 3 days. Especially if you live in the north.",
">\n\nI'm not a prepper either, but isn't it pretty normal to have various pasta, grains and cans and maybe even some stuff in the freezer? I try not to stock up too much, but our family could probably easily survive for 2 weeks if we are being a little creative with the stuff we have.",
">\n\nIt's not as normal as you think. That's why people are going hungry. At least one fatality was a man getting groceries for his family. \nIt's looked down upon as \"weird\" and nutty to have a prepper mentality. I got downvoted to shit in a previous thread for saying that it's a good time to be a survivalist in Buffalo right now.... That doesn't just include having food stored, but also potable (drinkable) water, fuel, and generators.",
">\n\nBless this man and his amazing heart!",
">\n\nMerry belated Christmas and Happy New Year!",
">\n\nLol why ares you getting soo many downvotes??",
">\n\nMaybe they're unironically offended by \"Merry Christmas.\" \nEdit: Can someone explain what you all are so upset about? Genuinely curious.",
">\n\nThe other heroes are the people working at the store",
">\n\nOn Friday(December 23, for people who view this comment in the future), near the end of my shift(at my local grocery store, while it was still blowing quite hard, people would drive in this weather, just to buy a large bottle of Whisky, or a 24 pack of beer.",
">\n\nSome of the people trying to help are getting $1000 tickets for driving during a travel ban.",
">\n\nI wonder why the local PD doesn't temporarily deputize the people who want to help and delegate specific tasks to them instead of punishing them for getting in the way.",
">\n\nLiability. Sending untrained people into extreme weather is a recipe for disaster",
">\n\nSurely there must be a legal framework in place for a liability waiver in situations like these. Have no police departments ever deputized people in an emergency at any point in history? Is there no precedent to follow?",
">\n\nI don't think there is precedence. A Sheriff and the US Marshals can deputize, and if my understanding is correct the Sheriff is allowed to do that because they are elected directly by the people (in the case of Sheriffs). Interesting topic though. \nEdit: A US Marshal could deputize because their (main) function is as officers of a court, executing orders that already cleared the judicial system (is what I gather as to why). Nowadays only the Director of the USMS deputizes, and only does so for law enforcement not in the USMS or private security for courtroom security. They also deputize US Attorney personnel in the DoJ to give nationwide clearance to carry firearms under LEOSA\nAs for state/local level law enforcement, across the board sheriffs can deputize. Depending on the state, other law enforcement personnel can deputize, but it is subject to different standards/requirements. \nReading New York law on who is considered a \"peace officer\" (a list of people with law enforcement capacity of some sort), the town/city/county can appoint someone as a \"harbor master\" with no state level criteria. This would make them a peace officer as defined by the state, and be a defacto deputization. BUT, this is basically rules lawyering and there might be a relevant law i'm missing.",
">\n\nSo is the county sheriff not involved in the emergency response to this storm at all?",
">\n\nRead the edit for some interesting info, but to answer your question: I don't know for Buffalo specifically. Each office is different, it's something I'll have to research. \nNot all sheriff offices are \"law enforcement\", many are only officers of the court like US marshals. They do things such as staff jails, guard courthouses, etc. There are 3 main types of offices: Restricted, Limited, and Full service. Restricted and Limited are the aforementioned offices that have limited duty/jurisdiction, where I live (St. Louis) the Sheriff wouldn't be involved in this type of situation.\nEdit: Alongside being appointed Harbor Masters, I also see a way for defacto deputization by the Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority in compliance with New York law. This one is interesting as the NFTA is a privatized public corporation like the US Postal Service.\nEdit #2: So to answer your original question, there are many ways the state/local police can defacto deputize a citizen in New York, if not for the local Sheriff. Non-Sheriff/US marshal deputization has now piqued my interest, as my original generalization that there is no precedent is not so cut and dry."
] |
>
Good to see this man do this for the families that truly need it. | [
"Some people say tragedy builds character. I believe that tragedy reveals character. And this dude's character has been revealed as top notch.",
">\n\nThis is why buffalo is the city of good neighbors",
">\n\nI've heard of it raining cats and dogs, but a buffalo blizzard is something else.",
">\n\nYou are joking, but I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes a common term.",
">\n\nI'm not a prepper by any means, but everyone should have enough food and supplies to be able to hunker down for at least 3 days. Especially if you live in the north.",
">\n\nI'm not a prepper either, but isn't it pretty normal to have various pasta, grains and cans and maybe even some stuff in the freezer? I try not to stock up too much, but our family could probably easily survive for 2 weeks if we are being a little creative with the stuff we have.",
">\n\nIt's not as normal as you think. That's why people are going hungry. At least one fatality was a man getting groceries for his family. \nIt's looked down upon as \"weird\" and nutty to have a prepper mentality. I got downvoted to shit in a previous thread for saying that it's a good time to be a survivalist in Buffalo right now.... That doesn't just include having food stored, but also potable (drinkable) water, fuel, and generators.",
">\n\nBless this man and his amazing heart!",
">\n\nMerry belated Christmas and Happy New Year!",
">\n\nLol why ares you getting soo many downvotes??",
">\n\nMaybe they're unironically offended by \"Merry Christmas.\" \nEdit: Can someone explain what you all are so upset about? Genuinely curious.",
">\n\nThe other heroes are the people working at the store",
">\n\nOn Friday(December 23, for people who view this comment in the future), near the end of my shift(at my local grocery store, while it was still blowing quite hard, people would drive in this weather, just to buy a large bottle of Whisky, or a 24 pack of beer.",
">\n\nSome of the people trying to help are getting $1000 tickets for driving during a travel ban.",
">\n\nI wonder why the local PD doesn't temporarily deputize the people who want to help and delegate specific tasks to them instead of punishing them for getting in the way.",
">\n\nLiability. Sending untrained people into extreme weather is a recipe for disaster",
">\n\nSurely there must be a legal framework in place for a liability waiver in situations like these. Have no police departments ever deputized people in an emergency at any point in history? Is there no precedent to follow?",
">\n\nI don't think there is precedence. A Sheriff and the US Marshals can deputize, and if my understanding is correct the Sheriff is allowed to do that because they are elected directly by the people (in the case of Sheriffs). Interesting topic though. \nEdit: A US Marshal could deputize because their (main) function is as officers of a court, executing orders that already cleared the judicial system (is what I gather as to why). Nowadays only the Director of the USMS deputizes, and only does so for law enforcement not in the USMS or private security for courtroom security. They also deputize US Attorney personnel in the DoJ to give nationwide clearance to carry firearms under LEOSA\nAs for state/local level law enforcement, across the board sheriffs can deputize. Depending on the state, other law enforcement personnel can deputize, but it is subject to different standards/requirements. \nReading New York law on who is considered a \"peace officer\" (a list of people with law enforcement capacity of some sort), the town/city/county can appoint someone as a \"harbor master\" with no state level criteria. This would make them a peace officer as defined by the state, and be a defacto deputization. BUT, this is basically rules lawyering and there might be a relevant law i'm missing.",
">\n\nSo is the county sheriff not involved in the emergency response to this storm at all?",
">\n\nRead the edit for some interesting info, but to answer your question: I don't know for Buffalo specifically. Each office is different, it's something I'll have to research. \nNot all sheriff offices are \"law enforcement\", many are only officers of the court like US marshals. They do things such as staff jails, guard courthouses, etc. There are 3 main types of offices: Restricted, Limited, and Full service. Restricted and Limited are the aforementioned offices that have limited duty/jurisdiction, where I live (St. Louis) the Sheriff wouldn't be involved in this type of situation.\nEdit: Alongside being appointed Harbor Masters, I also see a way for defacto deputization by the Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority in compliance with New York law. This one is interesting as the NFTA is a privatized public corporation like the US Postal Service.\nEdit #2: So to answer your original question, there are many ways the state/local police can defacto deputize a citizen in New York, if not for the local Sheriff. Non-Sheriff/US marshal deputization has now piqued my interest, as my original generalization that there is no precedent is not so cut and dry.",
">\n\nVery interesting. I appreciate you sharing your research on the matter."
] |
>
Joe Biden, give this man a medal. | [
"Some people say tragedy builds character. I believe that tragedy reveals character. And this dude's character has been revealed as top notch.",
">\n\nThis is why buffalo is the city of good neighbors",
">\n\nI've heard of it raining cats and dogs, but a buffalo blizzard is something else.",
">\n\nYou are joking, but I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes a common term.",
">\n\nI'm not a prepper by any means, but everyone should have enough food and supplies to be able to hunker down for at least 3 days. Especially if you live in the north.",
">\n\nI'm not a prepper either, but isn't it pretty normal to have various pasta, grains and cans and maybe even some stuff in the freezer? I try not to stock up too much, but our family could probably easily survive for 2 weeks if we are being a little creative with the stuff we have.",
">\n\nIt's not as normal as you think. That's why people are going hungry. At least one fatality was a man getting groceries for his family. \nIt's looked down upon as \"weird\" and nutty to have a prepper mentality. I got downvoted to shit in a previous thread for saying that it's a good time to be a survivalist in Buffalo right now.... That doesn't just include having food stored, but also potable (drinkable) water, fuel, and generators.",
">\n\nBless this man and his amazing heart!",
">\n\nMerry belated Christmas and Happy New Year!",
">\n\nLol why ares you getting soo many downvotes??",
">\n\nMaybe they're unironically offended by \"Merry Christmas.\" \nEdit: Can someone explain what you all are so upset about? Genuinely curious.",
">\n\nThe other heroes are the people working at the store",
">\n\nOn Friday(December 23, for people who view this comment in the future), near the end of my shift(at my local grocery store, while it was still blowing quite hard, people would drive in this weather, just to buy a large bottle of Whisky, or a 24 pack of beer.",
">\n\nSome of the people trying to help are getting $1000 tickets for driving during a travel ban.",
">\n\nI wonder why the local PD doesn't temporarily deputize the people who want to help and delegate specific tasks to them instead of punishing them for getting in the way.",
">\n\nLiability. Sending untrained people into extreme weather is a recipe for disaster",
">\n\nSurely there must be a legal framework in place for a liability waiver in situations like these. Have no police departments ever deputized people in an emergency at any point in history? Is there no precedent to follow?",
">\n\nI don't think there is precedence. A Sheriff and the US Marshals can deputize, and if my understanding is correct the Sheriff is allowed to do that because they are elected directly by the people (in the case of Sheriffs). Interesting topic though. \nEdit: A US Marshal could deputize because their (main) function is as officers of a court, executing orders that already cleared the judicial system (is what I gather as to why). Nowadays only the Director of the USMS deputizes, and only does so for law enforcement not in the USMS or private security for courtroom security. They also deputize US Attorney personnel in the DoJ to give nationwide clearance to carry firearms under LEOSA\nAs for state/local level law enforcement, across the board sheriffs can deputize. Depending on the state, other law enforcement personnel can deputize, but it is subject to different standards/requirements. \nReading New York law on who is considered a \"peace officer\" (a list of people with law enforcement capacity of some sort), the town/city/county can appoint someone as a \"harbor master\" with no state level criteria. This would make them a peace officer as defined by the state, and be a defacto deputization. BUT, this is basically rules lawyering and there might be a relevant law i'm missing.",
">\n\nSo is the county sheriff not involved in the emergency response to this storm at all?",
">\n\nRead the edit for some interesting info, but to answer your question: I don't know for Buffalo specifically. Each office is different, it's something I'll have to research. \nNot all sheriff offices are \"law enforcement\", many are only officers of the court like US marshals. They do things such as staff jails, guard courthouses, etc. There are 3 main types of offices: Restricted, Limited, and Full service. Restricted and Limited are the aforementioned offices that have limited duty/jurisdiction, where I live (St. Louis) the Sheriff wouldn't be involved in this type of situation.\nEdit: Alongside being appointed Harbor Masters, I also see a way for defacto deputization by the Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority in compliance with New York law. This one is interesting as the NFTA is a privatized public corporation like the US Postal Service.\nEdit #2: So to answer your original question, there are many ways the state/local police can defacto deputize a citizen in New York, if not for the local Sheriff. Non-Sheriff/US marshal deputization has now piqued my interest, as my original generalization that there is no precedent is not so cut and dry.",
">\n\nVery interesting. I appreciate you sharing your research on the matter.",
">\n\nGood to see this man do this for the families that truly need it."
] |
>
People still snowed in up there? | [
"Some people say tragedy builds character. I believe that tragedy reveals character. And this dude's character has been revealed as top notch.",
">\n\nThis is why buffalo is the city of good neighbors",
">\n\nI've heard of it raining cats and dogs, but a buffalo blizzard is something else.",
">\n\nYou are joking, but I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes a common term.",
">\n\nI'm not a prepper by any means, but everyone should have enough food and supplies to be able to hunker down for at least 3 days. Especially if you live in the north.",
">\n\nI'm not a prepper either, but isn't it pretty normal to have various pasta, grains and cans and maybe even some stuff in the freezer? I try not to stock up too much, but our family could probably easily survive for 2 weeks if we are being a little creative with the stuff we have.",
">\n\nIt's not as normal as you think. That's why people are going hungry. At least one fatality was a man getting groceries for his family. \nIt's looked down upon as \"weird\" and nutty to have a prepper mentality. I got downvoted to shit in a previous thread for saying that it's a good time to be a survivalist in Buffalo right now.... That doesn't just include having food stored, but also potable (drinkable) water, fuel, and generators.",
">\n\nBless this man and his amazing heart!",
">\n\nMerry belated Christmas and Happy New Year!",
">\n\nLol why ares you getting soo many downvotes??",
">\n\nMaybe they're unironically offended by \"Merry Christmas.\" \nEdit: Can someone explain what you all are so upset about? Genuinely curious.",
">\n\nThe other heroes are the people working at the store",
">\n\nOn Friday(December 23, for people who view this comment in the future), near the end of my shift(at my local grocery store, while it was still blowing quite hard, people would drive in this weather, just to buy a large bottle of Whisky, or a 24 pack of beer.",
">\n\nSome of the people trying to help are getting $1000 tickets for driving during a travel ban.",
">\n\nI wonder why the local PD doesn't temporarily deputize the people who want to help and delegate specific tasks to them instead of punishing them for getting in the way.",
">\n\nLiability. Sending untrained people into extreme weather is a recipe for disaster",
">\n\nSurely there must be a legal framework in place for a liability waiver in situations like these. Have no police departments ever deputized people in an emergency at any point in history? Is there no precedent to follow?",
">\n\nI don't think there is precedence. A Sheriff and the US Marshals can deputize, and if my understanding is correct the Sheriff is allowed to do that because they are elected directly by the people (in the case of Sheriffs). Interesting topic though. \nEdit: A US Marshal could deputize because their (main) function is as officers of a court, executing orders that already cleared the judicial system (is what I gather as to why). Nowadays only the Director of the USMS deputizes, and only does so for law enforcement not in the USMS or private security for courtroom security. They also deputize US Attorney personnel in the DoJ to give nationwide clearance to carry firearms under LEOSA\nAs for state/local level law enforcement, across the board sheriffs can deputize. Depending on the state, other law enforcement personnel can deputize, but it is subject to different standards/requirements. \nReading New York law on who is considered a \"peace officer\" (a list of people with law enforcement capacity of some sort), the town/city/county can appoint someone as a \"harbor master\" with no state level criteria. This would make them a peace officer as defined by the state, and be a defacto deputization. BUT, this is basically rules lawyering and there might be a relevant law i'm missing.",
">\n\nSo is the county sheriff not involved in the emergency response to this storm at all?",
">\n\nRead the edit for some interesting info, but to answer your question: I don't know for Buffalo specifically. Each office is different, it's something I'll have to research. \nNot all sheriff offices are \"law enforcement\", many are only officers of the court like US marshals. They do things such as staff jails, guard courthouses, etc. There are 3 main types of offices: Restricted, Limited, and Full service. Restricted and Limited are the aforementioned offices that have limited duty/jurisdiction, where I live (St. Louis) the Sheriff wouldn't be involved in this type of situation.\nEdit: Alongside being appointed Harbor Masters, I also see a way for defacto deputization by the Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority in compliance with New York law. This one is interesting as the NFTA is a privatized public corporation like the US Postal Service.\nEdit #2: So to answer your original question, there are many ways the state/local police can defacto deputize a citizen in New York, if not for the local Sheriff. Non-Sheriff/US marshal deputization has now piqued my interest, as my original generalization that there is no precedent is not so cut and dry.",
">\n\nVery interesting. I appreciate you sharing your research on the matter.",
">\n\nGood to see this man do this for the families that truly need it.",
">\n\nJoe Biden, give this man a medal."
] |
>
Some of the city but most are getting dug out now | [
"Some people say tragedy builds character. I believe that tragedy reveals character. And this dude's character has been revealed as top notch.",
">\n\nThis is why buffalo is the city of good neighbors",
">\n\nI've heard of it raining cats and dogs, but a buffalo blizzard is something else.",
">\n\nYou are joking, but I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes a common term.",
">\n\nI'm not a prepper by any means, but everyone should have enough food and supplies to be able to hunker down for at least 3 days. Especially if you live in the north.",
">\n\nI'm not a prepper either, but isn't it pretty normal to have various pasta, grains and cans and maybe even some stuff in the freezer? I try not to stock up too much, but our family could probably easily survive for 2 weeks if we are being a little creative with the stuff we have.",
">\n\nIt's not as normal as you think. That's why people are going hungry. At least one fatality was a man getting groceries for his family. \nIt's looked down upon as \"weird\" and nutty to have a prepper mentality. I got downvoted to shit in a previous thread for saying that it's a good time to be a survivalist in Buffalo right now.... That doesn't just include having food stored, but also potable (drinkable) water, fuel, and generators.",
">\n\nBless this man and his amazing heart!",
">\n\nMerry belated Christmas and Happy New Year!",
">\n\nLol why ares you getting soo many downvotes??",
">\n\nMaybe they're unironically offended by \"Merry Christmas.\" \nEdit: Can someone explain what you all are so upset about? Genuinely curious.",
">\n\nThe other heroes are the people working at the store",
">\n\nOn Friday(December 23, for people who view this comment in the future), near the end of my shift(at my local grocery store, while it was still blowing quite hard, people would drive in this weather, just to buy a large bottle of Whisky, or a 24 pack of beer.",
">\n\nSome of the people trying to help are getting $1000 tickets for driving during a travel ban.",
">\n\nI wonder why the local PD doesn't temporarily deputize the people who want to help and delegate specific tasks to them instead of punishing them for getting in the way.",
">\n\nLiability. Sending untrained people into extreme weather is a recipe for disaster",
">\n\nSurely there must be a legal framework in place for a liability waiver in situations like these. Have no police departments ever deputized people in an emergency at any point in history? Is there no precedent to follow?",
">\n\nI don't think there is precedence. A Sheriff and the US Marshals can deputize, and if my understanding is correct the Sheriff is allowed to do that because they are elected directly by the people (in the case of Sheriffs). Interesting topic though. \nEdit: A US Marshal could deputize because their (main) function is as officers of a court, executing orders that already cleared the judicial system (is what I gather as to why). Nowadays only the Director of the USMS deputizes, and only does so for law enforcement not in the USMS or private security for courtroom security. They also deputize US Attorney personnel in the DoJ to give nationwide clearance to carry firearms under LEOSA\nAs for state/local level law enforcement, across the board sheriffs can deputize. Depending on the state, other law enforcement personnel can deputize, but it is subject to different standards/requirements. \nReading New York law on who is considered a \"peace officer\" (a list of people with law enforcement capacity of some sort), the town/city/county can appoint someone as a \"harbor master\" with no state level criteria. This would make them a peace officer as defined by the state, and be a defacto deputization. BUT, this is basically rules lawyering and there might be a relevant law i'm missing.",
">\n\nSo is the county sheriff not involved in the emergency response to this storm at all?",
">\n\nRead the edit for some interesting info, but to answer your question: I don't know for Buffalo specifically. Each office is different, it's something I'll have to research. \nNot all sheriff offices are \"law enforcement\", many are only officers of the court like US marshals. They do things such as staff jails, guard courthouses, etc. There are 3 main types of offices: Restricted, Limited, and Full service. Restricted and Limited are the aforementioned offices that have limited duty/jurisdiction, where I live (St. Louis) the Sheriff wouldn't be involved in this type of situation.\nEdit: Alongside being appointed Harbor Masters, I also see a way for defacto deputization by the Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority in compliance with New York law. This one is interesting as the NFTA is a privatized public corporation like the US Postal Service.\nEdit #2: So to answer your original question, there are many ways the state/local police can defacto deputize a citizen in New York, if not for the local Sheriff. Non-Sheriff/US marshal deputization has now piqued my interest, as my original generalization that there is no precedent is not so cut and dry.",
">\n\nVery interesting. I appreciate you sharing your research on the matter.",
">\n\nGood to see this man do this for the families that truly need it.",
">\n\nJoe Biden, give this man a medal.",
">\n\nPeople still snowed in up there?"
] |
>
Did no one prepare for the forecast storm? | [
"Some people say tragedy builds character. I believe that tragedy reveals character. And this dude's character has been revealed as top notch.",
">\n\nThis is why buffalo is the city of good neighbors",
">\n\nI've heard of it raining cats and dogs, but a buffalo blizzard is something else.",
">\n\nYou are joking, but I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes a common term.",
">\n\nI'm not a prepper by any means, but everyone should have enough food and supplies to be able to hunker down for at least 3 days. Especially if you live in the north.",
">\n\nI'm not a prepper either, but isn't it pretty normal to have various pasta, grains and cans and maybe even some stuff in the freezer? I try not to stock up too much, but our family could probably easily survive for 2 weeks if we are being a little creative with the stuff we have.",
">\n\nIt's not as normal as you think. That's why people are going hungry. At least one fatality was a man getting groceries for his family. \nIt's looked down upon as \"weird\" and nutty to have a prepper mentality. I got downvoted to shit in a previous thread for saying that it's a good time to be a survivalist in Buffalo right now.... That doesn't just include having food stored, but also potable (drinkable) water, fuel, and generators.",
">\n\nBless this man and his amazing heart!",
">\n\nMerry belated Christmas and Happy New Year!",
">\n\nLol why ares you getting soo many downvotes??",
">\n\nMaybe they're unironically offended by \"Merry Christmas.\" \nEdit: Can someone explain what you all are so upset about? Genuinely curious.",
">\n\nThe other heroes are the people working at the store",
">\n\nOn Friday(December 23, for people who view this comment in the future), near the end of my shift(at my local grocery store, while it was still blowing quite hard, people would drive in this weather, just to buy a large bottle of Whisky, or a 24 pack of beer.",
">\n\nSome of the people trying to help are getting $1000 tickets for driving during a travel ban.",
">\n\nI wonder why the local PD doesn't temporarily deputize the people who want to help and delegate specific tasks to them instead of punishing them for getting in the way.",
">\n\nLiability. Sending untrained people into extreme weather is a recipe for disaster",
">\n\nSurely there must be a legal framework in place for a liability waiver in situations like these. Have no police departments ever deputized people in an emergency at any point in history? Is there no precedent to follow?",
">\n\nI don't think there is precedence. A Sheriff and the US Marshals can deputize, and if my understanding is correct the Sheriff is allowed to do that because they are elected directly by the people (in the case of Sheriffs). Interesting topic though. \nEdit: A US Marshal could deputize because their (main) function is as officers of a court, executing orders that already cleared the judicial system (is what I gather as to why). Nowadays only the Director of the USMS deputizes, and only does so for law enforcement not in the USMS or private security for courtroom security. They also deputize US Attorney personnel in the DoJ to give nationwide clearance to carry firearms under LEOSA\nAs for state/local level law enforcement, across the board sheriffs can deputize. Depending on the state, other law enforcement personnel can deputize, but it is subject to different standards/requirements. \nReading New York law on who is considered a \"peace officer\" (a list of people with law enforcement capacity of some sort), the town/city/county can appoint someone as a \"harbor master\" with no state level criteria. This would make them a peace officer as defined by the state, and be a defacto deputization. BUT, this is basically rules lawyering and there might be a relevant law i'm missing.",
">\n\nSo is the county sheriff not involved in the emergency response to this storm at all?",
">\n\nRead the edit for some interesting info, but to answer your question: I don't know for Buffalo specifically. Each office is different, it's something I'll have to research. \nNot all sheriff offices are \"law enforcement\", many are only officers of the court like US marshals. They do things such as staff jails, guard courthouses, etc. There are 3 main types of offices: Restricted, Limited, and Full service. Restricted and Limited are the aforementioned offices that have limited duty/jurisdiction, where I live (St. Louis) the Sheriff wouldn't be involved in this type of situation.\nEdit: Alongside being appointed Harbor Masters, I also see a way for defacto deputization by the Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority in compliance with New York law. This one is interesting as the NFTA is a privatized public corporation like the US Postal Service.\nEdit #2: So to answer your original question, there are many ways the state/local police can defacto deputize a citizen in New York, if not for the local Sheriff. Non-Sheriff/US marshal deputization has now piqued my interest, as my original generalization that there is no precedent is not so cut and dry.",
">\n\nVery interesting. I appreciate you sharing your research on the matter.",
">\n\nGood to see this man do this for the families that truly need it.",
">\n\nJoe Biden, give this man a medal.",
">\n\nPeople still snowed in up there?",
">\n\nSome of the city but most are getting dug out now"
] |
>
Many people live paycheck to paycheck and buy food as they have money, especially low income single mothers | [
"Some people say tragedy builds character. I believe that tragedy reveals character. And this dude's character has been revealed as top notch.",
">\n\nThis is why buffalo is the city of good neighbors",
">\n\nI've heard of it raining cats and dogs, but a buffalo blizzard is something else.",
">\n\nYou are joking, but I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes a common term.",
">\n\nI'm not a prepper by any means, but everyone should have enough food and supplies to be able to hunker down for at least 3 days. Especially if you live in the north.",
">\n\nI'm not a prepper either, but isn't it pretty normal to have various pasta, grains and cans and maybe even some stuff in the freezer? I try not to stock up too much, but our family could probably easily survive for 2 weeks if we are being a little creative with the stuff we have.",
">\n\nIt's not as normal as you think. That's why people are going hungry. At least one fatality was a man getting groceries for his family. \nIt's looked down upon as \"weird\" and nutty to have a prepper mentality. I got downvoted to shit in a previous thread for saying that it's a good time to be a survivalist in Buffalo right now.... That doesn't just include having food stored, but also potable (drinkable) water, fuel, and generators.",
">\n\nBless this man and his amazing heart!",
">\n\nMerry belated Christmas and Happy New Year!",
">\n\nLol why ares you getting soo many downvotes??",
">\n\nMaybe they're unironically offended by \"Merry Christmas.\" \nEdit: Can someone explain what you all are so upset about? Genuinely curious.",
">\n\nThe other heroes are the people working at the store",
">\n\nOn Friday(December 23, for people who view this comment in the future), near the end of my shift(at my local grocery store, while it was still blowing quite hard, people would drive in this weather, just to buy a large bottle of Whisky, or a 24 pack of beer.",
">\n\nSome of the people trying to help are getting $1000 tickets for driving during a travel ban.",
">\n\nI wonder why the local PD doesn't temporarily deputize the people who want to help and delegate specific tasks to them instead of punishing them for getting in the way.",
">\n\nLiability. Sending untrained people into extreme weather is a recipe for disaster",
">\n\nSurely there must be a legal framework in place for a liability waiver in situations like these. Have no police departments ever deputized people in an emergency at any point in history? Is there no precedent to follow?",
">\n\nI don't think there is precedence. A Sheriff and the US Marshals can deputize, and if my understanding is correct the Sheriff is allowed to do that because they are elected directly by the people (in the case of Sheriffs). Interesting topic though. \nEdit: A US Marshal could deputize because their (main) function is as officers of a court, executing orders that already cleared the judicial system (is what I gather as to why). Nowadays only the Director of the USMS deputizes, and only does so for law enforcement not in the USMS or private security for courtroom security. They also deputize US Attorney personnel in the DoJ to give nationwide clearance to carry firearms under LEOSA\nAs for state/local level law enforcement, across the board sheriffs can deputize. Depending on the state, other law enforcement personnel can deputize, but it is subject to different standards/requirements. \nReading New York law on who is considered a \"peace officer\" (a list of people with law enforcement capacity of some sort), the town/city/county can appoint someone as a \"harbor master\" with no state level criteria. This would make them a peace officer as defined by the state, and be a defacto deputization. BUT, this is basically rules lawyering and there might be a relevant law i'm missing.",
">\n\nSo is the county sheriff not involved in the emergency response to this storm at all?",
">\n\nRead the edit for some interesting info, but to answer your question: I don't know for Buffalo specifically. Each office is different, it's something I'll have to research. \nNot all sheriff offices are \"law enforcement\", many are only officers of the court like US marshals. They do things such as staff jails, guard courthouses, etc. There are 3 main types of offices: Restricted, Limited, and Full service. Restricted and Limited are the aforementioned offices that have limited duty/jurisdiction, where I live (St. Louis) the Sheriff wouldn't be involved in this type of situation.\nEdit: Alongside being appointed Harbor Masters, I also see a way for defacto deputization by the Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority in compliance with New York law. This one is interesting as the NFTA is a privatized public corporation like the US Postal Service.\nEdit #2: So to answer your original question, there are many ways the state/local police can defacto deputize a citizen in New York, if not for the local Sheriff. Non-Sheriff/US marshal deputization has now piqued my interest, as my original generalization that there is no precedent is not so cut and dry.",
">\n\nVery interesting. I appreciate you sharing your research on the matter.",
">\n\nGood to see this man do this for the families that truly need it.",
">\n\nJoe Biden, give this man a medal.",
">\n\nPeople still snowed in up there?",
">\n\nSome of the city but most are getting dug out now",
">\n\nDid no one prepare for the forecast storm?"
] |
>
Brown, Poloncarz and Hochul are lying about the death toll, it is much higher according to friends who work at the hospitals. | [
"Some people say tragedy builds character. I believe that tragedy reveals character. And this dude's character has been revealed as top notch.",
">\n\nThis is why buffalo is the city of good neighbors",
">\n\nI've heard of it raining cats and dogs, but a buffalo blizzard is something else.",
">\n\nYou are joking, but I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes a common term.",
">\n\nI'm not a prepper by any means, but everyone should have enough food and supplies to be able to hunker down for at least 3 days. Especially if you live in the north.",
">\n\nI'm not a prepper either, but isn't it pretty normal to have various pasta, grains and cans and maybe even some stuff in the freezer? I try not to stock up too much, but our family could probably easily survive for 2 weeks if we are being a little creative with the stuff we have.",
">\n\nIt's not as normal as you think. That's why people are going hungry. At least one fatality was a man getting groceries for his family. \nIt's looked down upon as \"weird\" and nutty to have a prepper mentality. I got downvoted to shit in a previous thread for saying that it's a good time to be a survivalist in Buffalo right now.... That doesn't just include having food stored, but also potable (drinkable) water, fuel, and generators.",
">\n\nBless this man and his amazing heart!",
">\n\nMerry belated Christmas and Happy New Year!",
">\n\nLol why ares you getting soo many downvotes??",
">\n\nMaybe they're unironically offended by \"Merry Christmas.\" \nEdit: Can someone explain what you all are so upset about? Genuinely curious.",
">\n\nThe other heroes are the people working at the store",
">\n\nOn Friday(December 23, for people who view this comment in the future), near the end of my shift(at my local grocery store, while it was still blowing quite hard, people would drive in this weather, just to buy a large bottle of Whisky, or a 24 pack of beer.",
">\n\nSome of the people trying to help are getting $1000 tickets for driving during a travel ban.",
">\n\nI wonder why the local PD doesn't temporarily deputize the people who want to help and delegate specific tasks to them instead of punishing them for getting in the way.",
">\n\nLiability. Sending untrained people into extreme weather is a recipe for disaster",
">\n\nSurely there must be a legal framework in place for a liability waiver in situations like these. Have no police departments ever deputized people in an emergency at any point in history? Is there no precedent to follow?",
">\n\nI don't think there is precedence. A Sheriff and the US Marshals can deputize, and if my understanding is correct the Sheriff is allowed to do that because they are elected directly by the people (in the case of Sheriffs). Interesting topic though. \nEdit: A US Marshal could deputize because their (main) function is as officers of a court, executing orders that already cleared the judicial system (is what I gather as to why). Nowadays only the Director of the USMS deputizes, and only does so for law enforcement not in the USMS or private security for courtroom security. They also deputize US Attorney personnel in the DoJ to give nationwide clearance to carry firearms under LEOSA\nAs for state/local level law enforcement, across the board sheriffs can deputize. Depending on the state, other law enforcement personnel can deputize, but it is subject to different standards/requirements. \nReading New York law on who is considered a \"peace officer\" (a list of people with law enforcement capacity of some sort), the town/city/county can appoint someone as a \"harbor master\" with no state level criteria. This would make them a peace officer as defined by the state, and be a defacto deputization. BUT, this is basically rules lawyering and there might be a relevant law i'm missing.",
">\n\nSo is the county sheriff not involved in the emergency response to this storm at all?",
">\n\nRead the edit for some interesting info, but to answer your question: I don't know for Buffalo specifically. Each office is different, it's something I'll have to research. \nNot all sheriff offices are \"law enforcement\", many are only officers of the court like US marshals. They do things such as staff jails, guard courthouses, etc. There are 3 main types of offices: Restricted, Limited, and Full service. Restricted and Limited are the aforementioned offices that have limited duty/jurisdiction, where I live (St. Louis) the Sheriff wouldn't be involved in this type of situation.\nEdit: Alongside being appointed Harbor Masters, I also see a way for defacto deputization by the Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority in compliance with New York law. This one is interesting as the NFTA is a privatized public corporation like the US Postal Service.\nEdit #2: So to answer your original question, there are many ways the state/local police can defacto deputize a citizen in New York, if not for the local Sheriff. Non-Sheriff/US marshal deputization has now piqued my interest, as my original generalization that there is no precedent is not so cut and dry.",
">\n\nVery interesting. I appreciate you sharing your research on the matter.",
">\n\nGood to see this man do this for the families that truly need it.",
">\n\nJoe Biden, give this man a medal.",
">\n\nPeople still snowed in up there?",
">\n\nSome of the city but most are getting dug out now",
">\n\nDid no one prepare for the forecast storm?",
">\n\nMany people live paycheck to paycheck and buy food as they have money, especially low income single mothers"
] |
>
They aren't lying, they can only confirm deaths that are solely related to the blizzard.
Once there is enough information out and some shit can blow over, they'll have an accurate one.
Don't make this a conspiracy, it's how these counts have always worked. | [
"Some people say tragedy builds character. I believe that tragedy reveals character. And this dude's character has been revealed as top notch.",
">\n\nThis is why buffalo is the city of good neighbors",
">\n\nI've heard of it raining cats and dogs, but a buffalo blizzard is something else.",
">\n\nYou are joking, but I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes a common term.",
">\n\nI'm not a prepper by any means, but everyone should have enough food and supplies to be able to hunker down for at least 3 days. Especially if you live in the north.",
">\n\nI'm not a prepper either, but isn't it pretty normal to have various pasta, grains and cans and maybe even some stuff in the freezer? I try not to stock up too much, but our family could probably easily survive for 2 weeks if we are being a little creative with the stuff we have.",
">\n\nIt's not as normal as you think. That's why people are going hungry. At least one fatality was a man getting groceries for his family. \nIt's looked down upon as \"weird\" and nutty to have a prepper mentality. I got downvoted to shit in a previous thread for saying that it's a good time to be a survivalist in Buffalo right now.... That doesn't just include having food stored, but also potable (drinkable) water, fuel, and generators.",
">\n\nBless this man and his amazing heart!",
">\n\nMerry belated Christmas and Happy New Year!",
">\n\nLol why ares you getting soo many downvotes??",
">\n\nMaybe they're unironically offended by \"Merry Christmas.\" \nEdit: Can someone explain what you all are so upset about? Genuinely curious.",
">\n\nThe other heroes are the people working at the store",
">\n\nOn Friday(December 23, for people who view this comment in the future), near the end of my shift(at my local grocery store, while it was still blowing quite hard, people would drive in this weather, just to buy a large bottle of Whisky, or a 24 pack of beer.",
">\n\nSome of the people trying to help are getting $1000 tickets for driving during a travel ban.",
">\n\nI wonder why the local PD doesn't temporarily deputize the people who want to help and delegate specific tasks to them instead of punishing them for getting in the way.",
">\n\nLiability. Sending untrained people into extreme weather is a recipe for disaster",
">\n\nSurely there must be a legal framework in place for a liability waiver in situations like these. Have no police departments ever deputized people in an emergency at any point in history? Is there no precedent to follow?",
">\n\nI don't think there is precedence. A Sheriff and the US Marshals can deputize, and if my understanding is correct the Sheriff is allowed to do that because they are elected directly by the people (in the case of Sheriffs). Interesting topic though. \nEdit: A US Marshal could deputize because their (main) function is as officers of a court, executing orders that already cleared the judicial system (is what I gather as to why). Nowadays only the Director of the USMS deputizes, and only does so for law enforcement not in the USMS or private security for courtroom security. They also deputize US Attorney personnel in the DoJ to give nationwide clearance to carry firearms under LEOSA\nAs for state/local level law enforcement, across the board sheriffs can deputize. Depending on the state, other law enforcement personnel can deputize, but it is subject to different standards/requirements. \nReading New York law on who is considered a \"peace officer\" (a list of people with law enforcement capacity of some sort), the town/city/county can appoint someone as a \"harbor master\" with no state level criteria. This would make them a peace officer as defined by the state, and be a defacto deputization. BUT, this is basically rules lawyering and there might be a relevant law i'm missing.",
">\n\nSo is the county sheriff not involved in the emergency response to this storm at all?",
">\n\nRead the edit for some interesting info, but to answer your question: I don't know for Buffalo specifically. Each office is different, it's something I'll have to research. \nNot all sheriff offices are \"law enforcement\", many are only officers of the court like US marshals. They do things such as staff jails, guard courthouses, etc. There are 3 main types of offices: Restricted, Limited, and Full service. Restricted and Limited are the aforementioned offices that have limited duty/jurisdiction, where I live (St. Louis) the Sheriff wouldn't be involved in this type of situation.\nEdit: Alongside being appointed Harbor Masters, I also see a way for defacto deputization by the Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority in compliance with New York law. This one is interesting as the NFTA is a privatized public corporation like the US Postal Service.\nEdit #2: So to answer your original question, there are many ways the state/local police can defacto deputize a citizen in New York, if not for the local Sheriff. Non-Sheriff/US marshal deputization has now piqued my interest, as my original generalization that there is no precedent is not so cut and dry.",
">\n\nVery interesting. I appreciate you sharing your research on the matter.",
">\n\nGood to see this man do this for the families that truly need it.",
">\n\nJoe Biden, give this man a medal.",
">\n\nPeople still snowed in up there?",
">\n\nSome of the city but most are getting dug out now",
">\n\nDid no one prepare for the forecast storm?",
">\n\nMany people live paycheck to paycheck and buy food as they have money, especially low income single mothers",
">\n\nBrown, Poloncarz and Hochul are lying about the death toll, it is much higher according to friends who work at the hospitals."
] |
>
My hospital friends are saying the reporting are inaccurate and a dozen DOAs are coming in every shift. | [
"Some people say tragedy builds character. I believe that tragedy reveals character. And this dude's character has been revealed as top notch.",
">\n\nThis is why buffalo is the city of good neighbors",
">\n\nI've heard of it raining cats and dogs, but a buffalo blizzard is something else.",
">\n\nYou are joking, but I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes a common term.",
">\n\nI'm not a prepper by any means, but everyone should have enough food and supplies to be able to hunker down for at least 3 days. Especially if you live in the north.",
">\n\nI'm not a prepper either, but isn't it pretty normal to have various pasta, grains and cans and maybe even some stuff in the freezer? I try not to stock up too much, but our family could probably easily survive for 2 weeks if we are being a little creative with the stuff we have.",
">\n\nIt's not as normal as you think. That's why people are going hungry. At least one fatality was a man getting groceries for his family. \nIt's looked down upon as \"weird\" and nutty to have a prepper mentality. I got downvoted to shit in a previous thread for saying that it's a good time to be a survivalist in Buffalo right now.... That doesn't just include having food stored, but also potable (drinkable) water, fuel, and generators.",
">\n\nBless this man and his amazing heart!",
">\n\nMerry belated Christmas and Happy New Year!",
">\n\nLol why ares you getting soo many downvotes??",
">\n\nMaybe they're unironically offended by \"Merry Christmas.\" \nEdit: Can someone explain what you all are so upset about? Genuinely curious.",
">\n\nThe other heroes are the people working at the store",
">\n\nOn Friday(December 23, for people who view this comment in the future), near the end of my shift(at my local grocery store, while it was still blowing quite hard, people would drive in this weather, just to buy a large bottle of Whisky, or a 24 pack of beer.",
">\n\nSome of the people trying to help are getting $1000 tickets for driving during a travel ban.",
">\n\nI wonder why the local PD doesn't temporarily deputize the people who want to help and delegate specific tasks to them instead of punishing them for getting in the way.",
">\n\nLiability. Sending untrained people into extreme weather is a recipe for disaster",
">\n\nSurely there must be a legal framework in place for a liability waiver in situations like these. Have no police departments ever deputized people in an emergency at any point in history? Is there no precedent to follow?",
">\n\nI don't think there is precedence. A Sheriff and the US Marshals can deputize, and if my understanding is correct the Sheriff is allowed to do that because they are elected directly by the people (in the case of Sheriffs). Interesting topic though. \nEdit: A US Marshal could deputize because their (main) function is as officers of a court, executing orders that already cleared the judicial system (is what I gather as to why). Nowadays only the Director of the USMS deputizes, and only does so for law enforcement not in the USMS or private security for courtroom security. They also deputize US Attorney personnel in the DoJ to give nationwide clearance to carry firearms under LEOSA\nAs for state/local level law enforcement, across the board sheriffs can deputize. Depending on the state, other law enforcement personnel can deputize, but it is subject to different standards/requirements. \nReading New York law on who is considered a \"peace officer\" (a list of people with law enforcement capacity of some sort), the town/city/county can appoint someone as a \"harbor master\" with no state level criteria. This would make them a peace officer as defined by the state, and be a defacto deputization. BUT, this is basically rules lawyering and there might be a relevant law i'm missing.",
">\n\nSo is the county sheriff not involved in the emergency response to this storm at all?",
">\n\nRead the edit for some interesting info, but to answer your question: I don't know for Buffalo specifically. Each office is different, it's something I'll have to research. \nNot all sheriff offices are \"law enforcement\", many are only officers of the court like US marshals. They do things such as staff jails, guard courthouses, etc. There are 3 main types of offices: Restricted, Limited, and Full service. Restricted and Limited are the aforementioned offices that have limited duty/jurisdiction, where I live (St. Louis) the Sheriff wouldn't be involved in this type of situation.\nEdit: Alongside being appointed Harbor Masters, I also see a way for defacto deputization by the Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority in compliance with New York law. This one is interesting as the NFTA is a privatized public corporation like the US Postal Service.\nEdit #2: So to answer your original question, there are many ways the state/local police can defacto deputize a citizen in New York, if not for the local Sheriff. Non-Sheriff/US marshal deputization has now piqued my interest, as my original generalization that there is no precedent is not so cut and dry.",
">\n\nVery interesting. I appreciate you sharing your research on the matter.",
">\n\nGood to see this man do this for the families that truly need it.",
">\n\nJoe Biden, give this man a medal.",
">\n\nPeople still snowed in up there?",
">\n\nSome of the city but most are getting dug out now",
">\n\nDid no one prepare for the forecast storm?",
">\n\nMany people live paycheck to paycheck and buy food as they have money, especially low income single mothers",
">\n\nBrown, Poloncarz and Hochul are lying about the death toll, it is much higher according to friends who work at the hospitals.",
">\n\nThey aren't lying, they can only confirm deaths that are solely related to the blizzard.\nOnce there is enough information out and some shit can blow over, they'll have an accurate one.\nDon't make this a conspiracy, it's how these counts have always worked."
] |
>
Why is EMS bringing already dead people to the hospital? | [
"Some people say tragedy builds character. I believe that tragedy reveals character. And this dude's character has been revealed as top notch.",
">\n\nThis is why buffalo is the city of good neighbors",
">\n\nI've heard of it raining cats and dogs, but a buffalo blizzard is something else.",
">\n\nYou are joking, but I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes a common term.",
">\n\nI'm not a prepper by any means, but everyone should have enough food and supplies to be able to hunker down for at least 3 days. Especially if you live in the north.",
">\n\nI'm not a prepper either, but isn't it pretty normal to have various pasta, grains and cans and maybe even some stuff in the freezer? I try not to stock up too much, but our family could probably easily survive for 2 weeks if we are being a little creative with the stuff we have.",
">\n\nIt's not as normal as you think. That's why people are going hungry. At least one fatality was a man getting groceries for his family. \nIt's looked down upon as \"weird\" and nutty to have a prepper mentality. I got downvoted to shit in a previous thread for saying that it's a good time to be a survivalist in Buffalo right now.... That doesn't just include having food stored, but also potable (drinkable) water, fuel, and generators.",
">\n\nBless this man and his amazing heart!",
">\n\nMerry belated Christmas and Happy New Year!",
">\n\nLol why ares you getting soo many downvotes??",
">\n\nMaybe they're unironically offended by \"Merry Christmas.\" \nEdit: Can someone explain what you all are so upset about? Genuinely curious.",
">\n\nThe other heroes are the people working at the store",
">\n\nOn Friday(December 23, for people who view this comment in the future), near the end of my shift(at my local grocery store, while it was still blowing quite hard, people would drive in this weather, just to buy a large bottle of Whisky, or a 24 pack of beer.",
">\n\nSome of the people trying to help are getting $1000 tickets for driving during a travel ban.",
">\n\nI wonder why the local PD doesn't temporarily deputize the people who want to help and delegate specific tasks to them instead of punishing them for getting in the way.",
">\n\nLiability. Sending untrained people into extreme weather is a recipe for disaster",
">\n\nSurely there must be a legal framework in place for a liability waiver in situations like these. Have no police departments ever deputized people in an emergency at any point in history? Is there no precedent to follow?",
">\n\nI don't think there is precedence. A Sheriff and the US Marshals can deputize, and if my understanding is correct the Sheriff is allowed to do that because they are elected directly by the people (in the case of Sheriffs). Interesting topic though. \nEdit: A US Marshal could deputize because their (main) function is as officers of a court, executing orders that already cleared the judicial system (is what I gather as to why). Nowadays only the Director of the USMS deputizes, and only does so for law enforcement not in the USMS or private security for courtroom security. They also deputize US Attorney personnel in the DoJ to give nationwide clearance to carry firearms under LEOSA\nAs for state/local level law enforcement, across the board sheriffs can deputize. Depending on the state, other law enforcement personnel can deputize, but it is subject to different standards/requirements. \nReading New York law on who is considered a \"peace officer\" (a list of people with law enforcement capacity of some sort), the town/city/county can appoint someone as a \"harbor master\" with no state level criteria. This would make them a peace officer as defined by the state, and be a defacto deputization. BUT, this is basically rules lawyering and there might be a relevant law i'm missing.",
">\n\nSo is the county sheriff not involved in the emergency response to this storm at all?",
">\n\nRead the edit for some interesting info, but to answer your question: I don't know for Buffalo specifically. Each office is different, it's something I'll have to research. \nNot all sheriff offices are \"law enforcement\", many are only officers of the court like US marshals. They do things such as staff jails, guard courthouses, etc. There are 3 main types of offices: Restricted, Limited, and Full service. Restricted and Limited are the aforementioned offices that have limited duty/jurisdiction, where I live (St. Louis) the Sheriff wouldn't be involved in this type of situation.\nEdit: Alongside being appointed Harbor Masters, I also see a way for defacto deputization by the Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority in compliance with New York law. This one is interesting as the NFTA is a privatized public corporation like the US Postal Service.\nEdit #2: So to answer your original question, there are many ways the state/local police can defacto deputize a citizen in New York, if not for the local Sheriff. Non-Sheriff/US marshal deputization has now piqued my interest, as my original generalization that there is no precedent is not so cut and dry.",
">\n\nVery interesting. I appreciate you sharing your research on the matter.",
">\n\nGood to see this man do this for the families that truly need it.",
">\n\nJoe Biden, give this man a medal.",
">\n\nPeople still snowed in up there?",
">\n\nSome of the city but most are getting dug out now",
">\n\nDid no one prepare for the forecast storm?",
">\n\nMany people live paycheck to paycheck and buy food as they have money, especially low income single mothers",
">\n\nBrown, Poloncarz and Hochul are lying about the death toll, it is much higher according to friends who work at the hospitals.",
">\n\nThey aren't lying, they can only confirm deaths that are solely related to the blizzard.\nOnce there is enough information out and some shit can blow over, they'll have an accurate one.\nDon't make this a conspiracy, it's how these counts have always worked.",
">\n\nMy hospital friends are saying the reporting are inaccurate and a dozen DOAs are coming in every shift."
] |
>
Don't know, I heard the morgue is full. | [
"Some people say tragedy builds character. I believe that tragedy reveals character. And this dude's character has been revealed as top notch.",
">\n\nThis is why buffalo is the city of good neighbors",
">\n\nI've heard of it raining cats and dogs, but a buffalo blizzard is something else.",
">\n\nYou are joking, but I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes a common term.",
">\n\nI'm not a prepper by any means, but everyone should have enough food and supplies to be able to hunker down for at least 3 days. Especially if you live in the north.",
">\n\nI'm not a prepper either, but isn't it pretty normal to have various pasta, grains and cans and maybe even some stuff in the freezer? I try not to stock up too much, but our family could probably easily survive for 2 weeks if we are being a little creative with the stuff we have.",
">\n\nIt's not as normal as you think. That's why people are going hungry. At least one fatality was a man getting groceries for his family. \nIt's looked down upon as \"weird\" and nutty to have a prepper mentality. I got downvoted to shit in a previous thread for saying that it's a good time to be a survivalist in Buffalo right now.... That doesn't just include having food stored, but also potable (drinkable) water, fuel, and generators.",
">\n\nBless this man and his amazing heart!",
">\n\nMerry belated Christmas and Happy New Year!",
">\n\nLol why ares you getting soo many downvotes??",
">\n\nMaybe they're unironically offended by \"Merry Christmas.\" \nEdit: Can someone explain what you all are so upset about? Genuinely curious.",
">\n\nThe other heroes are the people working at the store",
">\n\nOn Friday(December 23, for people who view this comment in the future), near the end of my shift(at my local grocery store, while it was still blowing quite hard, people would drive in this weather, just to buy a large bottle of Whisky, or a 24 pack of beer.",
">\n\nSome of the people trying to help are getting $1000 tickets for driving during a travel ban.",
">\n\nI wonder why the local PD doesn't temporarily deputize the people who want to help and delegate specific tasks to them instead of punishing them for getting in the way.",
">\n\nLiability. Sending untrained people into extreme weather is a recipe for disaster",
">\n\nSurely there must be a legal framework in place for a liability waiver in situations like these. Have no police departments ever deputized people in an emergency at any point in history? Is there no precedent to follow?",
">\n\nI don't think there is precedence. A Sheriff and the US Marshals can deputize, and if my understanding is correct the Sheriff is allowed to do that because they are elected directly by the people (in the case of Sheriffs). Interesting topic though. \nEdit: A US Marshal could deputize because their (main) function is as officers of a court, executing orders that already cleared the judicial system (is what I gather as to why). Nowadays only the Director of the USMS deputizes, and only does so for law enforcement not in the USMS or private security for courtroom security. They also deputize US Attorney personnel in the DoJ to give nationwide clearance to carry firearms under LEOSA\nAs for state/local level law enforcement, across the board sheriffs can deputize. Depending on the state, other law enforcement personnel can deputize, but it is subject to different standards/requirements. \nReading New York law on who is considered a \"peace officer\" (a list of people with law enforcement capacity of some sort), the town/city/county can appoint someone as a \"harbor master\" with no state level criteria. This would make them a peace officer as defined by the state, and be a defacto deputization. BUT, this is basically rules lawyering and there might be a relevant law i'm missing.",
">\n\nSo is the county sheriff not involved in the emergency response to this storm at all?",
">\n\nRead the edit for some interesting info, but to answer your question: I don't know for Buffalo specifically. Each office is different, it's something I'll have to research. \nNot all sheriff offices are \"law enforcement\", many are only officers of the court like US marshals. They do things such as staff jails, guard courthouses, etc. There are 3 main types of offices: Restricted, Limited, and Full service. Restricted and Limited are the aforementioned offices that have limited duty/jurisdiction, where I live (St. Louis) the Sheriff wouldn't be involved in this type of situation.\nEdit: Alongside being appointed Harbor Masters, I also see a way for defacto deputization by the Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority in compliance with New York law. This one is interesting as the NFTA is a privatized public corporation like the US Postal Service.\nEdit #2: So to answer your original question, there are many ways the state/local police can defacto deputize a citizen in New York, if not for the local Sheriff. Non-Sheriff/US marshal deputization has now piqued my interest, as my original generalization that there is no precedent is not so cut and dry.",
">\n\nVery interesting. I appreciate you sharing your research on the matter.",
">\n\nGood to see this man do this for the families that truly need it.",
">\n\nJoe Biden, give this man a medal.",
">\n\nPeople still snowed in up there?",
">\n\nSome of the city but most are getting dug out now",
">\n\nDid no one prepare for the forecast storm?",
">\n\nMany people live paycheck to paycheck and buy food as they have money, especially low income single mothers",
">\n\nBrown, Poloncarz and Hochul are lying about the death toll, it is much higher according to friends who work at the hospitals.",
">\n\nThey aren't lying, they can only confirm deaths that are solely related to the blizzard.\nOnce there is enough information out and some shit can blow over, they'll have an accurate one.\nDon't make this a conspiracy, it's how these counts have always worked.",
">\n\nMy hospital friends are saying the reporting are inaccurate and a dozen DOAs are coming in every shift.",
">\n\nWhy is EMS bringing already dead people to the hospital?"
] |
>
I guess with funeral homes being inaccessible too | [
"Some people say tragedy builds character. I believe that tragedy reveals character. And this dude's character has been revealed as top notch.",
">\n\nThis is why buffalo is the city of good neighbors",
">\n\nI've heard of it raining cats and dogs, but a buffalo blizzard is something else.",
">\n\nYou are joking, but I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes a common term.",
">\n\nI'm not a prepper by any means, but everyone should have enough food and supplies to be able to hunker down for at least 3 days. Especially if you live in the north.",
">\n\nI'm not a prepper either, but isn't it pretty normal to have various pasta, grains and cans and maybe even some stuff in the freezer? I try not to stock up too much, but our family could probably easily survive for 2 weeks if we are being a little creative with the stuff we have.",
">\n\nIt's not as normal as you think. That's why people are going hungry. At least one fatality was a man getting groceries for his family. \nIt's looked down upon as \"weird\" and nutty to have a prepper mentality. I got downvoted to shit in a previous thread for saying that it's a good time to be a survivalist in Buffalo right now.... That doesn't just include having food stored, but also potable (drinkable) water, fuel, and generators.",
">\n\nBless this man and his amazing heart!",
">\n\nMerry belated Christmas and Happy New Year!",
">\n\nLol why ares you getting soo many downvotes??",
">\n\nMaybe they're unironically offended by \"Merry Christmas.\" \nEdit: Can someone explain what you all are so upset about? Genuinely curious.",
">\n\nThe other heroes are the people working at the store",
">\n\nOn Friday(December 23, for people who view this comment in the future), near the end of my shift(at my local grocery store, while it was still blowing quite hard, people would drive in this weather, just to buy a large bottle of Whisky, or a 24 pack of beer.",
">\n\nSome of the people trying to help are getting $1000 tickets for driving during a travel ban.",
">\n\nI wonder why the local PD doesn't temporarily deputize the people who want to help and delegate specific tasks to them instead of punishing them for getting in the way.",
">\n\nLiability. Sending untrained people into extreme weather is a recipe for disaster",
">\n\nSurely there must be a legal framework in place for a liability waiver in situations like these. Have no police departments ever deputized people in an emergency at any point in history? Is there no precedent to follow?",
">\n\nI don't think there is precedence. A Sheriff and the US Marshals can deputize, and if my understanding is correct the Sheriff is allowed to do that because they are elected directly by the people (in the case of Sheriffs). Interesting topic though. \nEdit: A US Marshal could deputize because their (main) function is as officers of a court, executing orders that already cleared the judicial system (is what I gather as to why). Nowadays only the Director of the USMS deputizes, and only does so for law enforcement not in the USMS or private security for courtroom security. They also deputize US Attorney personnel in the DoJ to give nationwide clearance to carry firearms under LEOSA\nAs for state/local level law enforcement, across the board sheriffs can deputize. Depending on the state, other law enforcement personnel can deputize, but it is subject to different standards/requirements. \nReading New York law on who is considered a \"peace officer\" (a list of people with law enforcement capacity of some sort), the town/city/county can appoint someone as a \"harbor master\" with no state level criteria. This would make them a peace officer as defined by the state, and be a defacto deputization. BUT, this is basically rules lawyering and there might be a relevant law i'm missing.",
">\n\nSo is the county sheriff not involved in the emergency response to this storm at all?",
">\n\nRead the edit for some interesting info, but to answer your question: I don't know for Buffalo specifically. Each office is different, it's something I'll have to research. \nNot all sheriff offices are \"law enforcement\", many are only officers of the court like US marshals. They do things such as staff jails, guard courthouses, etc. There are 3 main types of offices: Restricted, Limited, and Full service. Restricted and Limited are the aforementioned offices that have limited duty/jurisdiction, where I live (St. Louis) the Sheriff wouldn't be involved in this type of situation.\nEdit: Alongside being appointed Harbor Masters, I also see a way for defacto deputization by the Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority in compliance with New York law. This one is interesting as the NFTA is a privatized public corporation like the US Postal Service.\nEdit #2: So to answer your original question, there are many ways the state/local police can defacto deputize a citizen in New York, if not for the local Sheriff. Non-Sheriff/US marshal deputization has now piqued my interest, as my original generalization that there is no precedent is not so cut and dry.",
">\n\nVery interesting. I appreciate you sharing your research on the matter.",
">\n\nGood to see this man do this for the families that truly need it.",
">\n\nJoe Biden, give this man a medal.",
">\n\nPeople still snowed in up there?",
">\n\nSome of the city but most are getting dug out now",
">\n\nDid no one prepare for the forecast storm?",
">\n\nMany people live paycheck to paycheck and buy food as they have money, especially low income single mothers",
">\n\nBrown, Poloncarz and Hochul are lying about the death toll, it is much higher according to friends who work at the hospitals.",
">\n\nThey aren't lying, they can only confirm deaths that are solely related to the blizzard.\nOnce there is enough information out and some shit can blow over, they'll have an accurate one.\nDon't make this a conspiracy, it's how these counts have always worked.",
">\n\nMy hospital friends are saying the reporting are inaccurate and a dozen DOAs are coming in every shift.",
">\n\nWhy is EMS bringing already dead people to the hospital?",
">\n\nDon't know, I heard the morgue is full."
] |
>
Are you from Buffalo? | [
"Some people say tragedy builds character. I believe that tragedy reveals character. And this dude's character has been revealed as top notch.",
">\n\nThis is why buffalo is the city of good neighbors",
">\n\nI've heard of it raining cats and dogs, but a buffalo blizzard is something else.",
">\n\nYou are joking, but I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes a common term.",
">\n\nI'm not a prepper by any means, but everyone should have enough food and supplies to be able to hunker down for at least 3 days. Especially if you live in the north.",
">\n\nI'm not a prepper either, but isn't it pretty normal to have various pasta, grains and cans and maybe even some stuff in the freezer? I try not to stock up too much, but our family could probably easily survive for 2 weeks if we are being a little creative with the stuff we have.",
">\n\nIt's not as normal as you think. That's why people are going hungry. At least one fatality was a man getting groceries for his family. \nIt's looked down upon as \"weird\" and nutty to have a prepper mentality. I got downvoted to shit in a previous thread for saying that it's a good time to be a survivalist in Buffalo right now.... That doesn't just include having food stored, but also potable (drinkable) water, fuel, and generators.",
">\n\nBless this man and his amazing heart!",
">\n\nMerry belated Christmas and Happy New Year!",
">\n\nLol why ares you getting soo many downvotes??",
">\n\nMaybe they're unironically offended by \"Merry Christmas.\" \nEdit: Can someone explain what you all are so upset about? Genuinely curious.",
">\n\nThe other heroes are the people working at the store",
">\n\nOn Friday(December 23, for people who view this comment in the future), near the end of my shift(at my local grocery store, while it was still blowing quite hard, people would drive in this weather, just to buy a large bottle of Whisky, or a 24 pack of beer.",
">\n\nSome of the people trying to help are getting $1000 tickets for driving during a travel ban.",
">\n\nI wonder why the local PD doesn't temporarily deputize the people who want to help and delegate specific tasks to them instead of punishing them for getting in the way.",
">\n\nLiability. Sending untrained people into extreme weather is a recipe for disaster",
">\n\nSurely there must be a legal framework in place for a liability waiver in situations like these. Have no police departments ever deputized people in an emergency at any point in history? Is there no precedent to follow?",
">\n\nI don't think there is precedence. A Sheriff and the US Marshals can deputize, and if my understanding is correct the Sheriff is allowed to do that because they are elected directly by the people (in the case of Sheriffs). Interesting topic though. \nEdit: A US Marshal could deputize because their (main) function is as officers of a court, executing orders that already cleared the judicial system (is what I gather as to why). Nowadays only the Director of the USMS deputizes, and only does so for law enforcement not in the USMS or private security for courtroom security. They also deputize US Attorney personnel in the DoJ to give nationwide clearance to carry firearms under LEOSA\nAs for state/local level law enforcement, across the board sheriffs can deputize. Depending on the state, other law enforcement personnel can deputize, but it is subject to different standards/requirements. \nReading New York law on who is considered a \"peace officer\" (a list of people with law enforcement capacity of some sort), the town/city/county can appoint someone as a \"harbor master\" with no state level criteria. This would make them a peace officer as defined by the state, and be a defacto deputization. BUT, this is basically rules lawyering and there might be a relevant law i'm missing.",
">\n\nSo is the county sheriff not involved in the emergency response to this storm at all?",
">\n\nRead the edit for some interesting info, but to answer your question: I don't know for Buffalo specifically. Each office is different, it's something I'll have to research. \nNot all sheriff offices are \"law enforcement\", many are only officers of the court like US marshals. They do things such as staff jails, guard courthouses, etc. There are 3 main types of offices: Restricted, Limited, and Full service. Restricted and Limited are the aforementioned offices that have limited duty/jurisdiction, where I live (St. Louis) the Sheriff wouldn't be involved in this type of situation.\nEdit: Alongside being appointed Harbor Masters, I also see a way for defacto deputization by the Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority in compliance with New York law. This one is interesting as the NFTA is a privatized public corporation like the US Postal Service.\nEdit #2: So to answer your original question, there are many ways the state/local police can defacto deputize a citizen in New York, if not for the local Sheriff. Non-Sheriff/US marshal deputization has now piqued my interest, as my original generalization that there is no precedent is not so cut and dry.",
">\n\nVery interesting. I appreciate you sharing your research on the matter.",
">\n\nGood to see this man do this for the families that truly need it.",
">\n\nJoe Biden, give this man a medal.",
">\n\nPeople still snowed in up there?",
">\n\nSome of the city but most are getting dug out now",
">\n\nDid no one prepare for the forecast storm?",
">\n\nMany people live paycheck to paycheck and buy food as they have money, especially low income single mothers",
">\n\nBrown, Poloncarz and Hochul are lying about the death toll, it is much higher according to friends who work at the hospitals.",
">\n\nThey aren't lying, they can only confirm deaths that are solely related to the blizzard.\nOnce there is enough information out and some shit can blow over, they'll have an accurate one.\nDon't make this a conspiracy, it's how these counts have always worked.",
">\n\nMy hospital friends are saying the reporting are inaccurate and a dozen DOAs are coming in every shift.",
">\n\nWhy is EMS bringing already dead people to the hospital?",
">\n\nDon't know, I heard the morgue is full.",
">\n\nI guess with funeral homes being inaccessible too"
] |
>
There are hundreds, maybe thousands, of people being truly heroic in the Buffalo region without taking the time to post how cool they are.
Down-vote for ego masturbation. | [
"Some people say tragedy builds character. I believe that tragedy reveals character. And this dude's character has been revealed as top notch.",
">\n\nThis is why buffalo is the city of good neighbors",
">\n\nI've heard of it raining cats and dogs, but a buffalo blizzard is something else.",
">\n\nYou are joking, but I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes a common term.",
">\n\nI'm not a prepper by any means, but everyone should have enough food and supplies to be able to hunker down for at least 3 days. Especially if you live in the north.",
">\n\nI'm not a prepper either, but isn't it pretty normal to have various pasta, grains and cans and maybe even some stuff in the freezer? I try not to stock up too much, but our family could probably easily survive for 2 weeks if we are being a little creative with the stuff we have.",
">\n\nIt's not as normal as you think. That's why people are going hungry. At least one fatality was a man getting groceries for his family. \nIt's looked down upon as \"weird\" and nutty to have a prepper mentality. I got downvoted to shit in a previous thread for saying that it's a good time to be a survivalist in Buffalo right now.... That doesn't just include having food stored, but also potable (drinkable) water, fuel, and generators.",
">\n\nBless this man and his amazing heart!",
">\n\nMerry belated Christmas and Happy New Year!",
">\n\nLol why ares you getting soo many downvotes??",
">\n\nMaybe they're unironically offended by \"Merry Christmas.\" \nEdit: Can someone explain what you all are so upset about? Genuinely curious.",
">\n\nThe other heroes are the people working at the store",
">\n\nOn Friday(December 23, for people who view this comment in the future), near the end of my shift(at my local grocery store, while it was still blowing quite hard, people would drive in this weather, just to buy a large bottle of Whisky, or a 24 pack of beer.",
">\n\nSome of the people trying to help are getting $1000 tickets for driving during a travel ban.",
">\n\nI wonder why the local PD doesn't temporarily deputize the people who want to help and delegate specific tasks to them instead of punishing them for getting in the way.",
">\n\nLiability. Sending untrained people into extreme weather is a recipe for disaster",
">\n\nSurely there must be a legal framework in place for a liability waiver in situations like these. Have no police departments ever deputized people in an emergency at any point in history? Is there no precedent to follow?",
">\n\nI don't think there is precedence. A Sheriff and the US Marshals can deputize, and if my understanding is correct the Sheriff is allowed to do that because they are elected directly by the people (in the case of Sheriffs). Interesting topic though. \nEdit: A US Marshal could deputize because their (main) function is as officers of a court, executing orders that already cleared the judicial system (is what I gather as to why). Nowadays only the Director of the USMS deputizes, and only does so for law enforcement not in the USMS or private security for courtroom security. They also deputize US Attorney personnel in the DoJ to give nationwide clearance to carry firearms under LEOSA\nAs for state/local level law enforcement, across the board sheriffs can deputize. Depending on the state, other law enforcement personnel can deputize, but it is subject to different standards/requirements. \nReading New York law on who is considered a \"peace officer\" (a list of people with law enforcement capacity of some sort), the town/city/county can appoint someone as a \"harbor master\" with no state level criteria. This would make them a peace officer as defined by the state, and be a defacto deputization. BUT, this is basically rules lawyering and there might be a relevant law i'm missing.",
">\n\nSo is the county sheriff not involved in the emergency response to this storm at all?",
">\n\nRead the edit for some interesting info, but to answer your question: I don't know for Buffalo specifically. Each office is different, it's something I'll have to research. \nNot all sheriff offices are \"law enforcement\", many are only officers of the court like US marshals. They do things such as staff jails, guard courthouses, etc. There are 3 main types of offices: Restricted, Limited, and Full service. Restricted and Limited are the aforementioned offices that have limited duty/jurisdiction, where I live (St. Louis) the Sheriff wouldn't be involved in this type of situation.\nEdit: Alongside being appointed Harbor Masters, I also see a way for defacto deputization by the Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority in compliance with New York law. This one is interesting as the NFTA is a privatized public corporation like the US Postal Service.\nEdit #2: So to answer your original question, there are many ways the state/local police can defacto deputize a citizen in New York, if not for the local Sheriff. Non-Sheriff/US marshal deputization has now piqued my interest, as my original generalization that there is no precedent is not so cut and dry.",
">\n\nVery interesting. I appreciate you sharing your research on the matter.",
">\n\nGood to see this man do this for the families that truly need it.",
">\n\nJoe Biden, give this man a medal.",
">\n\nPeople still snowed in up there?",
">\n\nSome of the city but most are getting dug out now",
">\n\nDid no one prepare for the forecast storm?",
">\n\nMany people live paycheck to paycheck and buy food as they have money, especially low income single mothers",
">\n\nBrown, Poloncarz and Hochul are lying about the death toll, it is much higher according to friends who work at the hospitals.",
">\n\nThey aren't lying, they can only confirm deaths that are solely related to the blizzard.\nOnce there is enough information out and some shit can blow over, they'll have an accurate one.\nDon't make this a conspiracy, it's how these counts have always worked.",
">\n\nMy hospital friends are saying the reporting are inaccurate and a dozen DOAs are coming in every shift.",
">\n\nWhy is EMS bringing already dead people to the hospital?",
">\n\nDon't know, I heard the morgue is full.",
">\n\nI guess with funeral homes being inaccessible too",
">\n\nAre you from Buffalo?"
] |
>
Pretty sure he didn't post this himself. It was a first-person interview written by a journalist | [
"Some people say tragedy builds character. I believe that tragedy reveals character. And this dude's character has been revealed as top notch.",
">\n\nThis is why buffalo is the city of good neighbors",
">\n\nI've heard of it raining cats and dogs, but a buffalo blizzard is something else.",
">\n\nYou are joking, but I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes a common term.",
">\n\nI'm not a prepper by any means, but everyone should have enough food and supplies to be able to hunker down for at least 3 days. Especially if you live in the north.",
">\n\nI'm not a prepper either, but isn't it pretty normal to have various pasta, grains and cans and maybe even some stuff in the freezer? I try not to stock up too much, but our family could probably easily survive for 2 weeks if we are being a little creative with the stuff we have.",
">\n\nIt's not as normal as you think. That's why people are going hungry. At least one fatality was a man getting groceries for his family. \nIt's looked down upon as \"weird\" and nutty to have a prepper mentality. I got downvoted to shit in a previous thread for saying that it's a good time to be a survivalist in Buffalo right now.... That doesn't just include having food stored, but also potable (drinkable) water, fuel, and generators.",
">\n\nBless this man and his amazing heart!",
">\n\nMerry belated Christmas and Happy New Year!",
">\n\nLol why ares you getting soo many downvotes??",
">\n\nMaybe they're unironically offended by \"Merry Christmas.\" \nEdit: Can someone explain what you all are so upset about? Genuinely curious.",
">\n\nThe other heroes are the people working at the store",
">\n\nOn Friday(December 23, for people who view this comment in the future), near the end of my shift(at my local grocery store, while it was still blowing quite hard, people would drive in this weather, just to buy a large bottle of Whisky, or a 24 pack of beer.",
">\n\nSome of the people trying to help are getting $1000 tickets for driving during a travel ban.",
">\n\nI wonder why the local PD doesn't temporarily deputize the people who want to help and delegate specific tasks to them instead of punishing them for getting in the way.",
">\n\nLiability. Sending untrained people into extreme weather is a recipe for disaster",
">\n\nSurely there must be a legal framework in place for a liability waiver in situations like these. Have no police departments ever deputized people in an emergency at any point in history? Is there no precedent to follow?",
">\n\nI don't think there is precedence. A Sheriff and the US Marshals can deputize, and if my understanding is correct the Sheriff is allowed to do that because they are elected directly by the people (in the case of Sheriffs). Interesting topic though. \nEdit: A US Marshal could deputize because their (main) function is as officers of a court, executing orders that already cleared the judicial system (is what I gather as to why). Nowadays only the Director of the USMS deputizes, and only does so for law enforcement not in the USMS or private security for courtroom security. They also deputize US Attorney personnel in the DoJ to give nationwide clearance to carry firearms under LEOSA\nAs for state/local level law enforcement, across the board sheriffs can deputize. Depending on the state, other law enforcement personnel can deputize, but it is subject to different standards/requirements. \nReading New York law on who is considered a \"peace officer\" (a list of people with law enforcement capacity of some sort), the town/city/county can appoint someone as a \"harbor master\" with no state level criteria. This would make them a peace officer as defined by the state, and be a defacto deputization. BUT, this is basically rules lawyering and there might be a relevant law i'm missing.",
">\n\nSo is the county sheriff not involved in the emergency response to this storm at all?",
">\n\nRead the edit for some interesting info, but to answer your question: I don't know for Buffalo specifically. Each office is different, it's something I'll have to research. \nNot all sheriff offices are \"law enforcement\", many are only officers of the court like US marshals. They do things such as staff jails, guard courthouses, etc. There are 3 main types of offices: Restricted, Limited, and Full service. Restricted and Limited are the aforementioned offices that have limited duty/jurisdiction, where I live (St. Louis) the Sheriff wouldn't be involved in this type of situation.\nEdit: Alongside being appointed Harbor Masters, I also see a way for defacto deputization by the Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority in compliance with New York law. This one is interesting as the NFTA is a privatized public corporation like the US Postal Service.\nEdit #2: So to answer your original question, there are many ways the state/local police can defacto deputize a citizen in New York, if not for the local Sheriff. Non-Sheriff/US marshal deputization has now piqued my interest, as my original generalization that there is no precedent is not so cut and dry.",
">\n\nVery interesting. I appreciate you sharing your research on the matter.",
">\n\nGood to see this man do this for the families that truly need it.",
">\n\nJoe Biden, give this man a medal.",
">\n\nPeople still snowed in up there?",
">\n\nSome of the city but most are getting dug out now",
">\n\nDid no one prepare for the forecast storm?",
">\n\nMany people live paycheck to paycheck and buy food as they have money, especially low income single mothers",
">\n\nBrown, Poloncarz and Hochul are lying about the death toll, it is much higher according to friends who work at the hospitals.",
">\n\nThey aren't lying, they can only confirm deaths that are solely related to the blizzard.\nOnce there is enough information out and some shit can blow over, they'll have an accurate one.\nDon't make this a conspiracy, it's how these counts have always worked.",
">\n\nMy hospital friends are saying the reporting are inaccurate and a dozen DOAs are coming in every shift.",
">\n\nWhy is EMS bringing already dead people to the hospital?",
">\n\nDon't know, I heard the morgue is full.",
">\n\nI guess with funeral homes being inaccessible too",
">\n\nAre you from Buffalo?",
">\n\nThere are hundreds, maybe thousands, of people being truly heroic in the Buffalo region without taking the time to post how cool they are.\nDown-vote for ego masturbation."
] |
>
He does more than the government ever would | [
"Some people say tragedy builds character. I believe that tragedy reveals character. And this dude's character has been revealed as top notch.",
">\n\nThis is why buffalo is the city of good neighbors",
">\n\nI've heard of it raining cats and dogs, but a buffalo blizzard is something else.",
">\n\nYou are joking, but I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes a common term.",
">\n\nI'm not a prepper by any means, but everyone should have enough food and supplies to be able to hunker down for at least 3 days. Especially if you live in the north.",
">\n\nI'm not a prepper either, but isn't it pretty normal to have various pasta, grains and cans and maybe even some stuff in the freezer? I try not to stock up too much, but our family could probably easily survive for 2 weeks if we are being a little creative with the stuff we have.",
">\n\nIt's not as normal as you think. That's why people are going hungry. At least one fatality was a man getting groceries for his family. \nIt's looked down upon as \"weird\" and nutty to have a prepper mentality. I got downvoted to shit in a previous thread for saying that it's a good time to be a survivalist in Buffalo right now.... That doesn't just include having food stored, but also potable (drinkable) water, fuel, and generators.",
">\n\nBless this man and his amazing heart!",
">\n\nMerry belated Christmas and Happy New Year!",
">\n\nLol why ares you getting soo many downvotes??",
">\n\nMaybe they're unironically offended by \"Merry Christmas.\" \nEdit: Can someone explain what you all are so upset about? Genuinely curious.",
">\n\nThe other heroes are the people working at the store",
">\n\nOn Friday(December 23, for people who view this comment in the future), near the end of my shift(at my local grocery store, while it was still blowing quite hard, people would drive in this weather, just to buy a large bottle of Whisky, or a 24 pack of beer.",
">\n\nSome of the people trying to help are getting $1000 tickets for driving during a travel ban.",
">\n\nI wonder why the local PD doesn't temporarily deputize the people who want to help and delegate specific tasks to them instead of punishing them for getting in the way.",
">\n\nLiability. Sending untrained people into extreme weather is a recipe for disaster",
">\n\nSurely there must be a legal framework in place for a liability waiver in situations like these. Have no police departments ever deputized people in an emergency at any point in history? Is there no precedent to follow?",
">\n\nI don't think there is precedence. A Sheriff and the US Marshals can deputize, and if my understanding is correct the Sheriff is allowed to do that because they are elected directly by the people (in the case of Sheriffs). Interesting topic though. \nEdit: A US Marshal could deputize because their (main) function is as officers of a court, executing orders that already cleared the judicial system (is what I gather as to why). Nowadays only the Director of the USMS deputizes, and only does so for law enforcement not in the USMS or private security for courtroom security. They also deputize US Attorney personnel in the DoJ to give nationwide clearance to carry firearms under LEOSA\nAs for state/local level law enforcement, across the board sheriffs can deputize. Depending on the state, other law enforcement personnel can deputize, but it is subject to different standards/requirements. \nReading New York law on who is considered a \"peace officer\" (a list of people with law enforcement capacity of some sort), the town/city/county can appoint someone as a \"harbor master\" with no state level criteria. This would make them a peace officer as defined by the state, and be a defacto deputization. BUT, this is basically rules lawyering and there might be a relevant law i'm missing.",
">\n\nSo is the county sheriff not involved in the emergency response to this storm at all?",
">\n\nRead the edit for some interesting info, but to answer your question: I don't know for Buffalo specifically. Each office is different, it's something I'll have to research. \nNot all sheriff offices are \"law enforcement\", many are only officers of the court like US marshals. They do things such as staff jails, guard courthouses, etc. There are 3 main types of offices: Restricted, Limited, and Full service. Restricted and Limited are the aforementioned offices that have limited duty/jurisdiction, where I live (St. Louis) the Sheriff wouldn't be involved in this type of situation.\nEdit: Alongside being appointed Harbor Masters, I also see a way for defacto deputization by the Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority in compliance with New York law. This one is interesting as the NFTA is a privatized public corporation like the US Postal Service.\nEdit #2: So to answer your original question, there are many ways the state/local police can defacto deputize a citizen in New York, if not for the local Sheriff. Non-Sheriff/US marshal deputization has now piqued my interest, as my original generalization that there is no precedent is not so cut and dry.",
">\n\nVery interesting. I appreciate you sharing your research on the matter.",
">\n\nGood to see this man do this for the families that truly need it.",
">\n\nJoe Biden, give this man a medal.",
">\n\nPeople still snowed in up there?",
">\n\nSome of the city but most are getting dug out now",
">\n\nDid no one prepare for the forecast storm?",
">\n\nMany people live paycheck to paycheck and buy food as they have money, especially low income single mothers",
">\n\nBrown, Poloncarz and Hochul are lying about the death toll, it is much higher according to friends who work at the hospitals.",
">\n\nThey aren't lying, they can only confirm deaths that are solely related to the blizzard.\nOnce there is enough information out and some shit can blow over, they'll have an accurate one.\nDon't make this a conspiracy, it's how these counts have always worked.",
">\n\nMy hospital friends are saying the reporting are inaccurate and a dozen DOAs are coming in every shift.",
">\n\nWhy is EMS bringing already dead people to the hospital?",
">\n\nDon't know, I heard the morgue is full.",
">\n\nI guess with funeral homes being inaccessible too",
">\n\nAre you from Buffalo?",
">\n\nThere are hundreds, maybe thousands, of people being truly heroic in the Buffalo region without taking the time to post how cool they are.\nDown-vote for ego masturbation.",
">\n\nPretty sure he didn't post this himself. It was a first-person interview written by a journalist"
] |
> | [
"Some people say tragedy builds character. I believe that tragedy reveals character. And this dude's character has been revealed as top notch.",
">\n\nThis is why buffalo is the city of good neighbors",
">\n\nI've heard of it raining cats and dogs, but a buffalo blizzard is something else.",
">\n\nYou are joking, but I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes a common term.",
">\n\nI'm not a prepper by any means, but everyone should have enough food and supplies to be able to hunker down for at least 3 days. Especially if you live in the north.",
">\n\nI'm not a prepper either, but isn't it pretty normal to have various pasta, grains and cans and maybe even some stuff in the freezer? I try not to stock up too much, but our family could probably easily survive for 2 weeks if we are being a little creative with the stuff we have.",
">\n\nIt's not as normal as you think. That's why people are going hungry. At least one fatality was a man getting groceries for his family. \nIt's looked down upon as \"weird\" and nutty to have a prepper mentality. I got downvoted to shit in a previous thread for saying that it's a good time to be a survivalist in Buffalo right now.... That doesn't just include having food stored, but also potable (drinkable) water, fuel, and generators.",
">\n\nBless this man and his amazing heart!",
">\n\nMerry belated Christmas and Happy New Year!",
">\n\nLol why ares you getting soo many downvotes??",
">\n\nMaybe they're unironically offended by \"Merry Christmas.\" \nEdit: Can someone explain what you all are so upset about? Genuinely curious.",
">\n\nThe other heroes are the people working at the store",
">\n\nOn Friday(December 23, for people who view this comment in the future), near the end of my shift(at my local grocery store, while it was still blowing quite hard, people would drive in this weather, just to buy a large bottle of Whisky, or a 24 pack of beer.",
">\n\nSome of the people trying to help are getting $1000 tickets for driving during a travel ban.",
">\n\nI wonder why the local PD doesn't temporarily deputize the people who want to help and delegate specific tasks to them instead of punishing them for getting in the way.",
">\n\nLiability. Sending untrained people into extreme weather is a recipe for disaster",
">\n\nSurely there must be a legal framework in place for a liability waiver in situations like these. Have no police departments ever deputized people in an emergency at any point in history? Is there no precedent to follow?",
">\n\nI don't think there is precedence. A Sheriff and the US Marshals can deputize, and if my understanding is correct the Sheriff is allowed to do that because they are elected directly by the people (in the case of Sheriffs). Interesting topic though. \nEdit: A US Marshal could deputize because their (main) function is as officers of a court, executing orders that already cleared the judicial system (is what I gather as to why). Nowadays only the Director of the USMS deputizes, and only does so for law enforcement not in the USMS or private security for courtroom security. They also deputize US Attorney personnel in the DoJ to give nationwide clearance to carry firearms under LEOSA\nAs for state/local level law enforcement, across the board sheriffs can deputize. Depending on the state, other law enforcement personnel can deputize, but it is subject to different standards/requirements. \nReading New York law on who is considered a \"peace officer\" (a list of people with law enforcement capacity of some sort), the town/city/county can appoint someone as a \"harbor master\" with no state level criteria. This would make them a peace officer as defined by the state, and be a defacto deputization. BUT, this is basically rules lawyering and there might be a relevant law i'm missing.",
">\n\nSo is the county sheriff not involved in the emergency response to this storm at all?",
">\n\nRead the edit for some interesting info, but to answer your question: I don't know for Buffalo specifically. Each office is different, it's something I'll have to research. \nNot all sheriff offices are \"law enforcement\", many are only officers of the court like US marshals. They do things such as staff jails, guard courthouses, etc. There are 3 main types of offices: Restricted, Limited, and Full service. Restricted and Limited are the aforementioned offices that have limited duty/jurisdiction, where I live (St. Louis) the Sheriff wouldn't be involved in this type of situation.\nEdit: Alongside being appointed Harbor Masters, I also see a way for defacto deputization by the Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority in compliance with New York law. This one is interesting as the NFTA is a privatized public corporation like the US Postal Service.\nEdit #2: So to answer your original question, there are many ways the state/local police can defacto deputize a citizen in New York, if not for the local Sheriff. Non-Sheriff/US marshal deputization has now piqued my interest, as my original generalization that there is no precedent is not so cut and dry.",
">\n\nVery interesting. I appreciate you sharing your research on the matter.",
">\n\nGood to see this man do this for the families that truly need it.",
">\n\nJoe Biden, give this man a medal.",
">\n\nPeople still snowed in up there?",
">\n\nSome of the city but most are getting dug out now",
">\n\nDid no one prepare for the forecast storm?",
">\n\nMany people live paycheck to paycheck and buy food as they have money, especially low income single mothers",
">\n\nBrown, Poloncarz and Hochul are lying about the death toll, it is much higher according to friends who work at the hospitals.",
">\n\nThey aren't lying, they can only confirm deaths that are solely related to the blizzard.\nOnce there is enough information out and some shit can blow over, they'll have an accurate one.\nDon't make this a conspiracy, it's how these counts have always worked.",
">\n\nMy hospital friends are saying the reporting are inaccurate and a dozen DOAs are coming in every shift.",
">\n\nWhy is EMS bringing already dead people to the hospital?",
">\n\nDon't know, I heard the morgue is full.",
">\n\nI guess with funeral homes being inaccessible too",
">\n\nAre you from Buffalo?",
">\n\nThere are hundreds, maybe thousands, of people being truly heroic in the Buffalo region without taking the time to post how cool they are.\nDown-vote for ego masturbation.",
">\n\nPretty sure he didn't post this himself. It was a first-person interview written by a journalist",
">\n\nHe does more than the government ever would"
] |
To /u/GancioTheRanter, Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.
In our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest:
Instead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest.
Steelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words.
Avoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a delta before proceeding.
Ask questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong.
Please also take a moment to review our Rule B guidelines and really ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track. Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and understand why others think differently than you do. | [] |
>
What is the "atheist movement", can you explain that?
Atheism is the lack of believe in all god concepts, atheist hold no responsibility to provide evidence of how anything came to be. | [
"To /u/GancioTheRanter, Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.\nIn our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest:\n\nInstead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest.\nSteelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words.\nAvoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a delta before proceeding.\nAsk questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong.\n\nPlease also take a moment to review our Rule B guidelines and really ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track. Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and understand why others think differently than you do."
] |
>
Yeah pretty much this... atheism is not a "movement" . It is not like we are trying to recreate an atheist version of The Crusades and get rid of every religious person | [
"To /u/GancioTheRanter, Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.\nIn our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest:\n\nInstead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest.\nSteelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words.\nAvoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a delta before proceeding.\nAsk questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong.\n\nPlease also take a moment to review our Rule B guidelines and really ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track. Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and understand why others think differently than you do.",
">\n\nWhat is the \"atheist movement\", can you explain that?\nAtheism is the lack of believe in all god concepts, atheist hold no responsibility to provide evidence of how anything came to be."
] |
>
This isn't the gotcha you think it is lmao | [
"To /u/GancioTheRanter, Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.\nIn our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest:\n\nInstead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest.\nSteelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words.\nAvoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a delta before proceeding.\nAsk questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong.\n\nPlease also take a moment to review our Rule B guidelines and really ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track. Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and understand why others think differently than you do.",
">\n\nWhat is the \"atheist movement\", can you explain that?\nAtheism is the lack of believe in all god concepts, atheist hold no responsibility to provide evidence of how anything came to be.",
">\n\nYeah pretty much this... atheism is not a \"movement\" . It is not like we are trying to recreate an atheist version of The Crusades and get rid of every religious person"
] |
>
Would you use "we" to refer to the people that dislike the same foods you dislike? If many people identify themselves with the label atheist then there's an atheist movement. | [
"To /u/GancioTheRanter, Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.\nIn our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest:\n\nInstead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest.\nSteelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words.\nAvoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a delta before proceeding.\nAsk questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong.\n\nPlease also take a moment to review our Rule B guidelines and really ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track. Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and understand why others think differently than you do.",
">\n\nWhat is the \"atheist movement\", can you explain that?\nAtheism is the lack of believe in all god concepts, atheist hold no responsibility to provide evidence of how anything came to be.",
">\n\nYeah pretty much this... atheism is not a \"movement\" . It is not like we are trying to recreate an atheist version of The Crusades and get rid of every religious person",
">\n\nThis isn't the gotcha you think it is lmao"
] |
>
No there isn't lmao. He used "we" to refer to atheists in general, of which he is also an atheist. If by movement you mean "there's a lot of people becoming atheists" then I agree.
All the dude was saying is that "we atheists who only share a disbelief in God aren't trying to do anything else collectively like a crusade" that doesn't imply group cohesiveness at all. | [
"To /u/GancioTheRanter, Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.\nIn our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest:\n\nInstead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest.\nSteelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words.\nAvoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a delta before proceeding.\nAsk questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong.\n\nPlease also take a moment to review our Rule B guidelines and really ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track. Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and understand why others think differently than you do.",
">\n\nWhat is the \"atheist movement\", can you explain that?\nAtheism is the lack of believe in all god concepts, atheist hold no responsibility to provide evidence of how anything came to be.",
">\n\nYeah pretty much this... atheism is not a \"movement\" . It is not like we are trying to recreate an atheist version of The Crusades and get rid of every religious person",
">\n\nThis isn't the gotcha you think it is lmao",
">\n\nWould you use \"we\" to refer to the people that dislike the same foods you dislike? If many people identify themselves with the label atheist then there's an atheist movement."
] |
>
It is cristal clear to me now that the Atheist concept of people freeing themselves from the shakles of dogmatic faith to embrace rationality, empiricism and secular philosophy is complete and utter nonsense.
Be careful prescribing this view onto atheists in general. There is no atheist council that decides what all atheists should do.
The decline of traditional organized religion has not translated into a comparable diffusion of rationalism, empiricism or even scientific literacy among the general population, on the contrary, pseudoscientific beliefs and general woo are at an all time high.
Sure, idk what this proves though. There is a general move away from religion but it is happening for a large variety of reasons.
I would be prepared to trade organized religion for a world of empiricism and humanism, but I'm not going to bring down the Church just to see people turn to mysticism, spiritism, ancient aliens, whitewashed buddhism, "alternative medicine", astrology and the likes.
Idk why you're presenting this like it's only 2 alternatives. So let me get this straight. You've seen people fall for conspiracy theories and so you've become a Christian? What?
Institutions like the Catholic Church and others while sometimes corrupt and inefficient can bring people together to do some good and increase social trust while even bridging the gap between Science and Religion, many scientific accomplishments have been achieved under the guidance of the Catholic Church after all.
Certainly, and they can also cause atrocities. Many scientific achievements were stifled under the catholic church too don't forget. Not sure what point this proves.
Individualized mysticism or spiritism does none of that while leaving people vulnerable all kinds of dumb ideas about health and the very nature of the universe.
How does it not? It doesn't inherently push them to conspiracy as you seem to believe.
Also it strikes me as odd that you say "well I want everyone to be analytical but given people aren't ill just not be either and turn to religion" | [
"To /u/GancioTheRanter, Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.\nIn our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest:\n\nInstead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest.\nSteelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words.\nAvoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a delta before proceeding.\nAsk questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong.\n\nPlease also take a moment to review our Rule B guidelines and really ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track. Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and understand why others think differently than you do.",
">\n\nWhat is the \"atheist movement\", can you explain that?\nAtheism is the lack of believe in all god concepts, atheist hold no responsibility to provide evidence of how anything came to be.",
">\n\nYeah pretty much this... atheism is not a \"movement\" . It is not like we are trying to recreate an atheist version of The Crusades and get rid of every religious person",
">\n\nThis isn't the gotcha you think it is lmao",
">\n\nWould you use \"we\" to refer to the people that dislike the same foods you dislike? If many people identify themselves with the label atheist then there's an atheist movement.",
">\n\nNo there isn't lmao. He used \"we\" to refer to atheists in general, of which he is also an atheist. If by movement you mean \"there's a lot of people becoming atheists\" then I agree.\nAll the dude was saying is that \"we atheists who only share a disbelief in God aren't trying to do anything else collectively like a crusade\" that doesn't imply group cohesiveness at all."
] |
>
The "Atheist Movement" didn't fail completely because there never really was an "Atheist Movement."
There were newsgroups and subreddits, sure, like alt.atheism and r/atheism. And in those places, most participants were "agnostic atheists," meaning, basically, "Christians, I'm not buying what you're selling. It sounds like nonsense. Get off my back about it."
And that largely succeeded. American Christianity is much smaller and much quieter than it was thirty years ago, and Christians are more off-our-backs than ever before.
I agree that our communities have largely collapsed and people are more isolated and alone and miserable than ever before. But there are a dozen reasons for that - smartphones being one, the media culture of fear another - and you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all. | [
"To /u/GancioTheRanter, Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.\nIn our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest:\n\nInstead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest.\nSteelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words.\nAvoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a delta before proceeding.\nAsk questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong.\n\nPlease also take a moment to review our Rule B guidelines and really ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track. Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and understand why others think differently than you do.",
">\n\nWhat is the \"atheist movement\", can you explain that?\nAtheism is the lack of believe in all god concepts, atheist hold no responsibility to provide evidence of how anything came to be.",
">\n\nYeah pretty much this... atheism is not a \"movement\" . It is not like we are trying to recreate an atheist version of The Crusades and get rid of every religious person",
">\n\nThis isn't the gotcha you think it is lmao",
">\n\nWould you use \"we\" to refer to the people that dislike the same foods you dislike? If many people identify themselves with the label atheist then there's an atheist movement.",
">\n\nNo there isn't lmao. He used \"we\" to refer to atheists in general, of which he is also an atheist. If by movement you mean \"there's a lot of people becoming atheists\" then I agree.\nAll the dude was saying is that \"we atheists who only share a disbelief in God aren't trying to do anything else collectively like a crusade\" that doesn't imply group cohesiveness at all.",
">\n\n\nIt is cristal clear to me now that the Atheist concept of people freeing themselves from the shakles of dogmatic faith to embrace rationality, empiricism and secular philosophy is complete and utter nonsense.\n\nBe careful prescribing this view onto atheists in general. There is no atheist council that decides what all atheists should do. \n\nThe decline of traditional organized religion has not translated into a comparable diffusion of rationalism, empiricism or even scientific literacy among the general population, on the contrary, pseudoscientific beliefs and general woo are at an all time high.\n\nSure, idk what this proves though. There is a general move away from religion but it is happening for a large variety of reasons. \n\nI would be prepared to trade organized religion for a world of empiricism and humanism, but I'm not going to bring down the Church just to see people turn to mysticism, spiritism, ancient aliens, whitewashed buddhism, \"alternative medicine\", astrology and the likes.\n\nIdk why you're presenting this like it's only 2 alternatives. So let me get this straight. You've seen people fall for conspiracy theories and so you've become a Christian? What?\n\nInstitutions like the Catholic Church and others while sometimes corrupt and inefficient can bring people together to do some good and increase social trust while even bridging the gap between Science and Religion, many scientific accomplishments have been achieved under the guidance of the Catholic Church after all.\n\nCertainly, and they can also cause atrocities. Many scientific achievements were stifled under the catholic church too don't forget. Not sure what point this proves. \n\nIndividualized mysticism or spiritism does none of that while leaving people vulnerable all kinds of dumb ideas about health and the very nature of the universe.\n\nHow does it not? It doesn't inherently push them to conspiracy as you seem to believe.\nAlso it strikes me as odd that you say \"well I want everyone to be analytical but given people aren't ill just not be either and turn to religion\""
] |
>
and you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.
I think you can lay at least some of it at the feet of atheism, for the same reason Nietzsche pondered in Zarathustra when he say "God is dead, and we have killed him."
God may not exist outside the minds of men, and yet if we measure a thing by the effects it has on the world, the concept of God within the minds of men is one of the most powerful forces on earth, slaying millions and subjugating peoples across the globe, while also providing billions with comfort and a sense of purpose and meaning.
Nietzsche's observation was that removing this concept from the minds of men, "killing God," would have profound implications upon how society is structured and functions. It would either be replaced with something that met those same needs, or society would suffer from those needs being unmet. In his time, it was mostly the educated classes for whom God was dead, yet they played along as God justified their station in life.
Now we mostly have killed God, and the consequences are evident. There is no longer a common, underlying shared belief among a majority of the masses. It did not matter whether it was true per se, but it provided stability and at least a modicum of mutual respect across political parties. Now that we don't even have that, there are less barriers to "by any means necessary" strategies, such as we saw on Jan 6. | [
"To /u/GancioTheRanter, Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.\nIn our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest:\n\nInstead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest.\nSteelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words.\nAvoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a delta before proceeding.\nAsk questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong.\n\nPlease also take a moment to review our Rule B guidelines and really ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track. Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and understand why others think differently than you do.",
">\n\nWhat is the \"atheist movement\", can you explain that?\nAtheism is the lack of believe in all god concepts, atheist hold no responsibility to provide evidence of how anything came to be.",
">\n\nYeah pretty much this... atheism is not a \"movement\" . It is not like we are trying to recreate an atheist version of The Crusades and get rid of every religious person",
">\n\nThis isn't the gotcha you think it is lmao",
">\n\nWould you use \"we\" to refer to the people that dislike the same foods you dislike? If many people identify themselves with the label atheist then there's an atheist movement.",
">\n\nNo there isn't lmao. He used \"we\" to refer to atheists in general, of which he is also an atheist. If by movement you mean \"there's a lot of people becoming atheists\" then I agree.\nAll the dude was saying is that \"we atheists who only share a disbelief in God aren't trying to do anything else collectively like a crusade\" that doesn't imply group cohesiveness at all.",
">\n\n\nIt is cristal clear to me now that the Atheist concept of people freeing themselves from the shakles of dogmatic faith to embrace rationality, empiricism and secular philosophy is complete and utter nonsense.\n\nBe careful prescribing this view onto atheists in general. There is no atheist council that decides what all atheists should do. \n\nThe decline of traditional organized religion has not translated into a comparable diffusion of rationalism, empiricism or even scientific literacy among the general population, on the contrary, pseudoscientific beliefs and general woo are at an all time high.\n\nSure, idk what this proves though. There is a general move away from religion but it is happening for a large variety of reasons. \n\nI would be prepared to trade organized religion for a world of empiricism and humanism, but I'm not going to bring down the Church just to see people turn to mysticism, spiritism, ancient aliens, whitewashed buddhism, \"alternative medicine\", astrology and the likes.\n\nIdk why you're presenting this like it's only 2 alternatives. So let me get this straight. You've seen people fall for conspiracy theories and so you've become a Christian? What?\n\nInstitutions like the Catholic Church and others while sometimes corrupt and inefficient can bring people together to do some good and increase social trust while even bridging the gap between Science and Religion, many scientific accomplishments have been achieved under the guidance of the Catholic Church after all.\n\nCertainly, and they can also cause atrocities. Many scientific achievements were stifled under the catholic church too don't forget. Not sure what point this proves. \n\nIndividualized mysticism or spiritism does none of that while leaving people vulnerable all kinds of dumb ideas about health and the very nature of the universe.\n\nHow does it not? It doesn't inherently push them to conspiracy as you seem to believe.\nAlso it strikes me as odd that you say \"well I want everyone to be analytical but given people aren't ill just not be either and turn to religion\"",
">\n\nThe \"Atheist Movement\" didn't fail completely because there never really was an \"Atheist Movement.\"\nThere were newsgroups and subreddits, sure, like alt.atheism and r/atheism. And in those places, most participants were \"agnostic atheists,\" meaning, basically, \"Christians, I'm not buying what you're selling. It sounds like nonsense. Get off my back about it.\"\nAnd that largely succeeded. American Christianity is much smaller and much quieter than it was thirty years ago, and Christians are more off-our-backs than ever before.\nI agree that our communities have largely collapsed and people are more isolated and alone and miserable than ever before. But there are a dozen reasons for that - smartphones being one, the media culture of fear another - and you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all."
] |
>
Firstly, being an atheist isn't a movement, so your view is inaccurate and thus should already be changed.
But beyond that...
There are more atheist YoY every single year than the year prior by every research study that comes about, so it sounds like atheism is far from failing, and instead becoming quite successful as spreading into common belief (or lack thereof). | [
"To /u/GancioTheRanter, Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.\nIn our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest:\n\nInstead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest.\nSteelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words.\nAvoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a delta before proceeding.\nAsk questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong.\n\nPlease also take a moment to review our Rule B guidelines and really ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track. Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and understand why others think differently than you do.",
">\n\nWhat is the \"atheist movement\", can you explain that?\nAtheism is the lack of believe in all god concepts, atheist hold no responsibility to provide evidence of how anything came to be.",
">\n\nYeah pretty much this... atheism is not a \"movement\" . It is not like we are trying to recreate an atheist version of The Crusades and get rid of every religious person",
">\n\nThis isn't the gotcha you think it is lmao",
">\n\nWould you use \"we\" to refer to the people that dislike the same foods you dislike? If many people identify themselves with the label atheist then there's an atheist movement.",
">\n\nNo there isn't lmao. He used \"we\" to refer to atheists in general, of which he is also an atheist. If by movement you mean \"there's a lot of people becoming atheists\" then I agree.\nAll the dude was saying is that \"we atheists who only share a disbelief in God aren't trying to do anything else collectively like a crusade\" that doesn't imply group cohesiveness at all.",
">\n\n\nIt is cristal clear to me now that the Atheist concept of people freeing themselves from the shakles of dogmatic faith to embrace rationality, empiricism and secular philosophy is complete and utter nonsense.\n\nBe careful prescribing this view onto atheists in general. There is no atheist council that decides what all atheists should do. \n\nThe decline of traditional organized religion has not translated into a comparable diffusion of rationalism, empiricism or even scientific literacy among the general population, on the contrary, pseudoscientific beliefs and general woo are at an all time high.\n\nSure, idk what this proves though. There is a general move away from religion but it is happening for a large variety of reasons. \n\nI would be prepared to trade organized religion for a world of empiricism and humanism, but I'm not going to bring down the Church just to see people turn to mysticism, spiritism, ancient aliens, whitewashed buddhism, \"alternative medicine\", astrology and the likes.\n\nIdk why you're presenting this like it's only 2 alternatives. So let me get this straight. You've seen people fall for conspiracy theories and so you've become a Christian? What?\n\nInstitutions like the Catholic Church and others while sometimes corrupt and inefficient can bring people together to do some good and increase social trust while even bridging the gap between Science and Religion, many scientific accomplishments have been achieved under the guidance of the Catholic Church after all.\n\nCertainly, and they can also cause atrocities. Many scientific achievements were stifled under the catholic church too don't forget. Not sure what point this proves. \n\nIndividualized mysticism or spiritism does none of that while leaving people vulnerable all kinds of dumb ideas about health and the very nature of the universe.\n\nHow does it not? It doesn't inherently push them to conspiracy as you seem to believe.\nAlso it strikes me as odd that you say \"well I want everyone to be analytical but given people aren't ill just not be either and turn to religion\"",
">\n\nThe \"Atheist Movement\" didn't fail completely because there never really was an \"Atheist Movement.\"\nThere were newsgroups and subreddits, sure, like alt.atheism and r/atheism. And in those places, most participants were \"agnostic atheists,\" meaning, basically, \"Christians, I'm not buying what you're selling. It sounds like nonsense. Get off my back about it.\"\nAnd that largely succeeded. American Christianity is much smaller and much quieter than it was thirty years ago, and Christians are more off-our-backs than ever before.\nI agree that our communities have largely collapsed and people are more isolated and alone and miserable than ever before. But there are a dozen reasons for that - smartphones being one, the media culture of fear another - and you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.",
">\n\n\nand you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.\n\nI think you can lay at least some of it at the feet of atheism, for the same reason Nietzsche pondered in Zarathustra when he say \"God is dead, and we have killed him.\" \nGod may not exist outside the minds of men, and yet if we measure a thing by the effects it has on the world, the concept of God within the minds of men is one of the most powerful forces on earth, slaying millions and subjugating peoples across the globe, while also providing billions with comfort and a sense of purpose and meaning. \nNietzsche's observation was that removing this concept from the minds of men, \"killing God,\" would have profound implications upon how society is structured and functions. It would either be replaced with something that met those same needs, or society would suffer from those needs being unmet. In his time, it was mostly the educated classes for whom God was dead, yet they played along as God justified their station in life.\nNow we mostly have killed God, and the consequences are evident. There is no longer a common, underlying shared belief among a majority of the masses. It did not matter whether it was true per se, but it provided stability and at least a modicum of mutual respect across political parties. Now that we don't even have that, there are less barriers to \"by any means necessary\" strategies, such as we saw on Jan 6."
] |
>
Firstly, being an atheist isn't a movement
It was ten to fifteen years ago.
I personally was a part of at least two groups of hundreds of thousands people online highly engaged in the media battles of the time : Atheist Republic and Atheist United. The groups were constantly closed and closed again by sic Facebook and replenished in only a matter of days. You would see persons like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins all over medias on highly controversial topics, daring to say things that were intolerable on TV at the time when they were only common sense. The satanist church (which is an atheist advocacy group, not a real satanist organization) was constantly suing boards and states over interdictions of scientific material in schools. The pastafarian (joke) cult, that was also against biasing public debates in favor of Christianity over other religions and lack of any religion -one of the biggest coups was to allow non believers to have as much extra leaves as religious people had for religious purposes.
All of this just to say : there was one, and it was crazy and fun. | [
"To /u/GancioTheRanter, Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.\nIn our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest:\n\nInstead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest.\nSteelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words.\nAvoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a delta before proceeding.\nAsk questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong.\n\nPlease also take a moment to review our Rule B guidelines and really ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track. Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and understand why others think differently than you do.",
">\n\nWhat is the \"atheist movement\", can you explain that?\nAtheism is the lack of believe in all god concepts, atheist hold no responsibility to provide evidence of how anything came to be.",
">\n\nYeah pretty much this... atheism is not a \"movement\" . It is not like we are trying to recreate an atheist version of The Crusades and get rid of every religious person",
">\n\nThis isn't the gotcha you think it is lmao",
">\n\nWould you use \"we\" to refer to the people that dislike the same foods you dislike? If many people identify themselves with the label atheist then there's an atheist movement.",
">\n\nNo there isn't lmao. He used \"we\" to refer to atheists in general, of which he is also an atheist. If by movement you mean \"there's a lot of people becoming atheists\" then I agree.\nAll the dude was saying is that \"we atheists who only share a disbelief in God aren't trying to do anything else collectively like a crusade\" that doesn't imply group cohesiveness at all.",
">\n\n\nIt is cristal clear to me now that the Atheist concept of people freeing themselves from the shakles of dogmatic faith to embrace rationality, empiricism and secular philosophy is complete and utter nonsense.\n\nBe careful prescribing this view onto atheists in general. There is no atheist council that decides what all atheists should do. \n\nThe decline of traditional organized religion has not translated into a comparable diffusion of rationalism, empiricism or even scientific literacy among the general population, on the contrary, pseudoscientific beliefs and general woo are at an all time high.\n\nSure, idk what this proves though. There is a general move away from religion but it is happening for a large variety of reasons. \n\nI would be prepared to trade organized religion for a world of empiricism and humanism, but I'm not going to bring down the Church just to see people turn to mysticism, spiritism, ancient aliens, whitewashed buddhism, \"alternative medicine\", astrology and the likes.\n\nIdk why you're presenting this like it's only 2 alternatives. So let me get this straight. You've seen people fall for conspiracy theories and so you've become a Christian? What?\n\nInstitutions like the Catholic Church and others while sometimes corrupt and inefficient can bring people together to do some good and increase social trust while even bridging the gap between Science and Religion, many scientific accomplishments have been achieved under the guidance of the Catholic Church after all.\n\nCertainly, and they can also cause atrocities. Many scientific achievements were stifled under the catholic church too don't forget. Not sure what point this proves. \n\nIndividualized mysticism or spiritism does none of that while leaving people vulnerable all kinds of dumb ideas about health and the very nature of the universe.\n\nHow does it not? It doesn't inherently push them to conspiracy as you seem to believe.\nAlso it strikes me as odd that you say \"well I want everyone to be analytical but given people aren't ill just not be either and turn to religion\"",
">\n\nThe \"Atheist Movement\" didn't fail completely because there never really was an \"Atheist Movement.\"\nThere were newsgroups and subreddits, sure, like alt.atheism and r/atheism. And in those places, most participants were \"agnostic atheists,\" meaning, basically, \"Christians, I'm not buying what you're selling. It sounds like nonsense. Get off my back about it.\"\nAnd that largely succeeded. American Christianity is much smaller and much quieter than it was thirty years ago, and Christians are more off-our-backs than ever before.\nI agree that our communities have largely collapsed and people are more isolated and alone and miserable than ever before. But there are a dozen reasons for that - smartphones being one, the media culture of fear another - and you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.",
">\n\n\nand you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.\n\nI think you can lay at least some of it at the feet of atheism, for the same reason Nietzsche pondered in Zarathustra when he say \"God is dead, and we have killed him.\" \nGod may not exist outside the minds of men, and yet if we measure a thing by the effects it has on the world, the concept of God within the minds of men is one of the most powerful forces on earth, slaying millions and subjugating peoples across the globe, while also providing billions with comfort and a sense of purpose and meaning. \nNietzsche's observation was that removing this concept from the minds of men, \"killing God,\" would have profound implications upon how society is structured and functions. It would either be replaced with something that met those same needs, or society would suffer from those needs being unmet. In his time, it was mostly the educated classes for whom God was dead, yet they played along as God justified their station in life.\nNow we mostly have killed God, and the consequences are evident. There is no longer a common, underlying shared belief among a majority of the masses. It did not matter whether it was true per se, but it provided stability and at least a modicum of mutual respect across political parties. Now that we don't even have that, there are less barriers to \"by any means necessary\" strategies, such as we saw on Jan 6.",
">\n\nFirstly, being an atheist isn't a movement, so your view is inaccurate and thus should already be changed.\nBut beyond that...\nThere are more atheist YoY every single year than the year prior by every research study that comes about, so it sounds like atheism is far from failing, and instead becoming quite successful as spreading into common belief (or lack thereof)."
] |
>
TL;DR: Atheism would be great if people were into science and philosophy
As a PhD candidate in philosophy, believe me when I say that atheists getting more into philosophy will not make them more palatable to you. | [
"To /u/GancioTheRanter, Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.\nIn our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest:\n\nInstead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest.\nSteelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words.\nAvoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a delta before proceeding.\nAsk questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong.\n\nPlease also take a moment to review our Rule B guidelines and really ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track. Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and understand why others think differently than you do.",
">\n\nWhat is the \"atheist movement\", can you explain that?\nAtheism is the lack of believe in all god concepts, atheist hold no responsibility to provide evidence of how anything came to be.",
">\n\nYeah pretty much this... atheism is not a \"movement\" . It is not like we are trying to recreate an atheist version of The Crusades and get rid of every religious person",
">\n\nThis isn't the gotcha you think it is lmao",
">\n\nWould you use \"we\" to refer to the people that dislike the same foods you dislike? If many people identify themselves with the label atheist then there's an atheist movement.",
">\n\nNo there isn't lmao. He used \"we\" to refer to atheists in general, of which he is also an atheist. If by movement you mean \"there's a lot of people becoming atheists\" then I agree.\nAll the dude was saying is that \"we atheists who only share a disbelief in God aren't trying to do anything else collectively like a crusade\" that doesn't imply group cohesiveness at all.",
">\n\n\nIt is cristal clear to me now that the Atheist concept of people freeing themselves from the shakles of dogmatic faith to embrace rationality, empiricism and secular philosophy is complete and utter nonsense.\n\nBe careful prescribing this view onto atheists in general. There is no atheist council that decides what all atheists should do. \n\nThe decline of traditional organized religion has not translated into a comparable diffusion of rationalism, empiricism or even scientific literacy among the general population, on the contrary, pseudoscientific beliefs and general woo are at an all time high.\n\nSure, idk what this proves though. There is a general move away from religion but it is happening for a large variety of reasons. \n\nI would be prepared to trade organized religion for a world of empiricism and humanism, but I'm not going to bring down the Church just to see people turn to mysticism, spiritism, ancient aliens, whitewashed buddhism, \"alternative medicine\", astrology and the likes.\n\nIdk why you're presenting this like it's only 2 alternatives. So let me get this straight. You've seen people fall for conspiracy theories and so you've become a Christian? What?\n\nInstitutions like the Catholic Church and others while sometimes corrupt and inefficient can bring people together to do some good and increase social trust while even bridging the gap between Science and Religion, many scientific accomplishments have been achieved under the guidance of the Catholic Church after all.\n\nCertainly, and they can also cause atrocities. Many scientific achievements were stifled under the catholic church too don't forget. Not sure what point this proves. \n\nIndividualized mysticism or spiritism does none of that while leaving people vulnerable all kinds of dumb ideas about health and the very nature of the universe.\n\nHow does it not? It doesn't inherently push them to conspiracy as you seem to believe.\nAlso it strikes me as odd that you say \"well I want everyone to be analytical but given people aren't ill just not be either and turn to religion\"",
">\n\nThe \"Atheist Movement\" didn't fail completely because there never really was an \"Atheist Movement.\"\nThere were newsgroups and subreddits, sure, like alt.atheism and r/atheism. And in those places, most participants were \"agnostic atheists,\" meaning, basically, \"Christians, I'm not buying what you're selling. It sounds like nonsense. Get off my back about it.\"\nAnd that largely succeeded. American Christianity is much smaller and much quieter than it was thirty years ago, and Christians are more off-our-backs than ever before.\nI agree that our communities have largely collapsed and people are more isolated and alone and miserable than ever before. But there are a dozen reasons for that - smartphones being one, the media culture of fear another - and you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.",
">\n\n\nand you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.\n\nI think you can lay at least some of it at the feet of atheism, for the same reason Nietzsche pondered in Zarathustra when he say \"God is dead, and we have killed him.\" \nGod may not exist outside the minds of men, and yet if we measure a thing by the effects it has on the world, the concept of God within the minds of men is one of the most powerful forces on earth, slaying millions and subjugating peoples across the globe, while also providing billions with comfort and a sense of purpose and meaning. \nNietzsche's observation was that removing this concept from the minds of men, \"killing God,\" would have profound implications upon how society is structured and functions. It would either be replaced with something that met those same needs, or society would suffer from those needs being unmet. In his time, it was mostly the educated classes for whom God was dead, yet they played along as God justified their station in life.\nNow we mostly have killed God, and the consequences are evident. There is no longer a common, underlying shared belief among a majority of the masses. It did not matter whether it was true per se, but it provided stability and at least a modicum of mutual respect across political parties. Now that we don't even have that, there are less barriers to \"by any means necessary\" strategies, such as we saw on Jan 6.",
">\n\nFirstly, being an atheist isn't a movement, so your view is inaccurate and thus should already be changed.\nBut beyond that...\nThere are more atheist YoY every single year than the year prior by every research study that comes about, so it sounds like atheism is far from failing, and instead becoming quite successful as spreading into common belief (or lack thereof).",
">\n\n\nFirstly, being an atheist isn't a movement\n\nIt was ten to fifteen years ago. \nI personally was a part of at least two groups of hundreds of thousands people online highly engaged in the media battles of the time : Atheist Republic and Atheist United. The groups were constantly closed and closed again by sic Facebook and replenished in only a matter of days. You would see persons like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins all over medias on highly controversial topics, daring to say things that were intolerable on TV at the time when they were only common sense. The satanist church (which is an atheist advocacy group, not a real satanist organization) was constantly suing boards and states over interdictions of scientific material in schools. The pastafarian (joke) cult, that was also against biasing public debates in favor of Christianity over other religions and lack of any religion -one of the biggest coups was to allow non believers to have as much extra leaves as religious people had for religious purposes.\nAll of this just to say : there was one, and it was crazy and fun."
] |
>
Don't you guys learn religion as part of your Philosophy. Eastern/Western Thought, Bushism, Abrahamic Religion, Descartes, Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche? Or am I mistaken? | [
"To /u/GancioTheRanter, Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.\nIn our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest:\n\nInstead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest.\nSteelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words.\nAvoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a delta before proceeding.\nAsk questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong.\n\nPlease also take a moment to review our Rule B guidelines and really ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track. Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and understand why others think differently than you do.",
">\n\nWhat is the \"atheist movement\", can you explain that?\nAtheism is the lack of believe in all god concepts, atheist hold no responsibility to provide evidence of how anything came to be.",
">\n\nYeah pretty much this... atheism is not a \"movement\" . It is not like we are trying to recreate an atheist version of The Crusades and get rid of every religious person",
">\n\nThis isn't the gotcha you think it is lmao",
">\n\nWould you use \"we\" to refer to the people that dislike the same foods you dislike? If many people identify themselves with the label atheist then there's an atheist movement.",
">\n\nNo there isn't lmao. He used \"we\" to refer to atheists in general, of which he is also an atheist. If by movement you mean \"there's a lot of people becoming atheists\" then I agree.\nAll the dude was saying is that \"we atheists who only share a disbelief in God aren't trying to do anything else collectively like a crusade\" that doesn't imply group cohesiveness at all.",
">\n\n\nIt is cristal clear to me now that the Atheist concept of people freeing themselves from the shakles of dogmatic faith to embrace rationality, empiricism and secular philosophy is complete and utter nonsense.\n\nBe careful prescribing this view onto atheists in general. There is no atheist council that decides what all atheists should do. \n\nThe decline of traditional organized religion has not translated into a comparable diffusion of rationalism, empiricism or even scientific literacy among the general population, on the contrary, pseudoscientific beliefs and general woo are at an all time high.\n\nSure, idk what this proves though. There is a general move away from religion but it is happening for a large variety of reasons. \n\nI would be prepared to trade organized religion for a world of empiricism and humanism, but I'm not going to bring down the Church just to see people turn to mysticism, spiritism, ancient aliens, whitewashed buddhism, \"alternative medicine\", astrology and the likes.\n\nIdk why you're presenting this like it's only 2 alternatives. So let me get this straight. You've seen people fall for conspiracy theories and so you've become a Christian? What?\n\nInstitutions like the Catholic Church and others while sometimes corrupt and inefficient can bring people together to do some good and increase social trust while even bridging the gap between Science and Religion, many scientific accomplishments have been achieved under the guidance of the Catholic Church after all.\n\nCertainly, and they can also cause atrocities. Many scientific achievements were stifled under the catholic church too don't forget. Not sure what point this proves. \n\nIndividualized mysticism or spiritism does none of that while leaving people vulnerable all kinds of dumb ideas about health and the very nature of the universe.\n\nHow does it not? It doesn't inherently push them to conspiracy as you seem to believe.\nAlso it strikes me as odd that you say \"well I want everyone to be analytical but given people aren't ill just not be either and turn to religion\"",
">\n\nThe \"Atheist Movement\" didn't fail completely because there never really was an \"Atheist Movement.\"\nThere were newsgroups and subreddits, sure, like alt.atheism and r/atheism. And in those places, most participants were \"agnostic atheists,\" meaning, basically, \"Christians, I'm not buying what you're selling. It sounds like nonsense. Get off my back about it.\"\nAnd that largely succeeded. American Christianity is much smaller and much quieter than it was thirty years ago, and Christians are more off-our-backs than ever before.\nI agree that our communities have largely collapsed and people are more isolated and alone and miserable than ever before. But there are a dozen reasons for that - smartphones being one, the media culture of fear another - and you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.",
">\n\n\nand you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.\n\nI think you can lay at least some of it at the feet of atheism, for the same reason Nietzsche pondered in Zarathustra when he say \"God is dead, and we have killed him.\" \nGod may not exist outside the minds of men, and yet if we measure a thing by the effects it has on the world, the concept of God within the minds of men is one of the most powerful forces on earth, slaying millions and subjugating peoples across the globe, while also providing billions with comfort and a sense of purpose and meaning. \nNietzsche's observation was that removing this concept from the minds of men, \"killing God,\" would have profound implications upon how society is structured and functions. It would either be replaced with something that met those same needs, or society would suffer from those needs being unmet. In his time, it was mostly the educated classes for whom God was dead, yet they played along as God justified their station in life.\nNow we mostly have killed God, and the consequences are evident. There is no longer a common, underlying shared belief among a majority of the masses. It did not matter whether it was true per se, but it provided stability and at least a modicum of mutual respect across political parties. Now that we don't even have that, there are less barriers to \"by any means necessary\" strategies, such as we saw on Jan 6.",
">\n\nFirstly, being an atheist isn't a movement, so your view is inaccurate and thus should already be changed.\nBut beyond that...\nThere are more atheist YoY every single year than the year prior by every research study that comes about, so it sounds like atheism is far from failing, and instead becoming quite successful as spreading into common belief (or lack thereof).",
">\n\n\nFirstly, being an atheist isn't a movement\n\nIt was ten to fifteen years ago. \nI personally was a part of at least two groups of hundreds of thousands people online highly engaged in the media battles of the time : Atheist Republic and Atheist United. The groups were constantly closed and closed again by sic Facebook and replenished in only a matter of days. You would see persons like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins all over medias on highly controversial topics, daring to say things that were intolerable on TV at the time when they were only common sense. The satanist church (which is an atheist advocacy group, not a real satanist organization) was constantly suing boards and states over interdictions of scientific material in schools. The pastafarian (joke) cult, that was also against biasing public debates in favor of Christianity over other religions and lack of any religion -one of the biggest coups was to allow non believers to have as much extra leaves as religious people had for religious purposes.\nAll of this just to say : there was one, and it was crazy and fun.",
">\n\n\nTL;DR: Atheism would be great if people were into science and philosophy\n\nAs a PhD candidate in philosophy, believe me when I say that atheists getting more into philosophy will not make them more palatable to you."
] |
>
You don't need a movement to be atheist. I was brought up without a religion so it's normal to me. I don't see what all the fuss is about, it takes zero effort to not follow any religion if you never were immersed in one in the first place.
It's different if you're trying to escape a religion, but that's not all atheists. Perhaps the movement you're thinking about is for ex-religious types? | [
"To /u/GancioTheRanter, Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.\nIn our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest:\n\nInstead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest.\nSteelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words.\nAvoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a delta before proceeding.\nAsk questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong.\n\nPlease also take a moment to review our Rule B guidelines and really ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track. Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and understand why others think differently than you do.",
">\n\nWhat is the \"atheist movement\", can you explain that?\nAtheism is the lack of believe in all god concepts, atheist hold no responsibility to provide evidence of how anything came to be.",
">\n\nYeah pretty much this... atheism is not a \"movement\" . It is not like we are trying to recreate an atheist version of The Crusades and get rid of every religious person",
">\n\nThis isn't the gotcha you think it is lmao",
">\n\nWould you use \"we\" to refer to the people that dislike the same foods you dislike? If many people identify themselves with the label atheist then there's an atheist movement.",
">\n\nNo there isn't lmao. He used \"we\" to refer to atheists in general, of which he is also an atheist. If by movement you mean \"there's a lot of people becoming atheists\" then I agree.\nAll the dude was saying is that \"we atheists who only share a disbelief in God aren't trying to do anything else collectively like a crusade\" that doesn't imply group cohesiveness at all.",
">\n\n\nIt is cristal clear to me now that the Atheist concept of people freeing themselves from the shakles of dogmatic faith to embrace rationality, empiricism and secular philosophy is complete and utter nonsense.\n\nBe careful prescribing this view onto atheists in general. There is no atheist council that decides what all atheists should do. \n\nThe decline of traditional organized religion has not translated into a comparable diffusion of rationalism, empiricism or even scientific literacy among the general population, on the contrary, pseudoscientific beliefs and general woo are at an all time high.\n\nSure, idk what this proves though. There is a general move away from religion but it is happening for a large variety of reasons. \n\nI would be prepared to trade organized religion for a world of empiricism and humanism, but I'm not going to bring down the Church just to see people turn to mysticism, spiritism, ancient aliens, whitewashed buddhism, \"alternative medicine\", astrology and the likes.\n\nIdk why you're presenting this like it's only 2 alternatives. So let me get this straight. You've seen people fall for conspiracy theories and so you've become a Christian? What?\n\nInstitutions like the Catholic Church and others while sometimes corrupt and inefficient can bring people together to do some good and increase social trust while even bridging the gap between Science and Religion, many scientific accomplishments have been achieved under the guidance of the Catholic Church after all.\n\nCertainly, and they can also cause atrocities. Many scientific achievements were stifled under the catholic church too don't forget. Not sure what point this proves. \n\nIndividualized mysticism or spiritism does none of that while leaving people vulnerable all kinds of dumb ideas about health and the very nature of the universe.\n\nHow does it not? It doesn't inherently push them to conspiracy as you seem to believe.\nAlso it strikes me as odd that you say \"well I want everyone to be analytical but given people aren't ill just not be either and turn to religion\"",
">\n\nThe \"Atheist Movement\" didn't fail completely because there never really was an \"Atheist Movement.\"\nThere were newsgroups and subreddits, sure, like alt.atheism and r/atheism. And in those places, most participants were \"agnostic atheists,\" meaning, basically, \"Christians, I'm not buying what you're selling. It sounds like nonsense. Get off my back about it.\"\nAnd that largely succeeded. American Christianity is much smaller and much quieter than it was thirty years ago, and Christians are more off-our-backs than ever before.\nI agree that our communities have largely collapsed and people are more isolated and alone and miserable than ever before. But there are a dozen reasons for that - smartphones being one, the media culture of fear another - and you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.",
">\n\n\nand you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.\n\nI think you can lay at least some of it at the feet of atheism, for the same reason Nietzsche pondered in Zarathustra when he say \"God is dead, and we have killed him.\" \nGod may not exist outside the minds of men, and yet if we measure a thing by the effects it has on the world, the concept of God within the minds of men is one of the most powerful forces on earth, slaying millions and subjugating peoples across the globe, while also providing billions with comfort and a sense of purpose and meaning. \nNietzsche's observation was that removing this concept from the minds of men, \"killing God,\" would have profound implications upon how society is structured and functions. It would either be replaced with something that met those same needs, or society would suffer from those needs being unmet. In his time, it was mostly the educated classes for whom God was dead, yet they played along as God justified their station in life.\nNow we mostly have killed God, and the consequences are evident. There is no longer a common, underlying shared belief among a majority of the masses. It did not matter whether it was true per se, but it provided stability and at least a modicum of mutual respect across political parties. Now that we don't even have that, there are less barriers to \"by any means necessary\" strategies, such as we saw on Jan 6.",
">\n\nFirstly, being an atheist isn't a movement, so your view is inaccurate and thus should already be changed.\nBut beyond that...\nThere are more atheist YoY every single year than the year prior by every research study that comes about, so it sounds like atheism is far from failing, and instead becoming quite successful as spreading into common belief (or lack thereof).",
">\n\n\nFirstly, being an atheist isn't a movement\n\nIt was ten to fifteen years ago. \nI personally was a part of at least two groups of hundreds of thousands people online highly engaged in the media battles of the time : Atheist Republic and Atheist United. The groups were constantly closed and closed again by sic Facebook and replenished in only a matter of days. You would see persons like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins all over medias on highly controversial topics, daring to say things that were intolerable on TV at the time when they were only common sense. The satanist church (which is an atheist advocacy group, not a real satanist organization) was constantly suing boards and states over interdictions of scientific material in schools. The pastafarian (joke) cult, that was also against biasing public debates in favor of Christianity over other religions and lack of any religion -one of the biggest coups was to allow non believers to have as much extra leaves as religious people had for religious purposes.\nAll of this just to say : there was one, and it was crazy and fun.",
">\n\n\nTL;DR: Atheism would be great if people were into science and philosophy\n\nAs a PhD candidate in philosophy, believe me when I say that atheists getting more into philosophy will not make them more palatable to you.",
">\n\nDon't you guys learn religion as part of your Philosophy. Eastern/Western Thought, Bushism, Abrahamic Religion, Descartes, Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche? Or am I mistaken?"
] |
>
Does, whether a belief is true, matter to you? | [
"To /u/GancioTheRanter, Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.\nIn our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest:\n\nInstead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest.\nSteelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words.\nAvoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a delta before proceeding.\nAsk questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong.\n\nPlease also take a moment to review our Rule B guidelines and really ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track. Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and understand why others think differently than you do.",
">\n\nWhat is the \"atheist movement\", can you explain that?\nAtheism is the lack of believe in all god concepts, atheist hold no responsibility to provide evidence of how anything came to be.",
">\n\nYeah pretty much this... atheism is not a \"movement\" . It is not like we are trying to recreate an atheist version of The Crusades and get rid of every religious person",
">\n\nThis isn't the gotcha you think it is lmao",
">\n\nWould you use \"we\" to refer to the people that dislike the same foods you dislike? If many people identify themselves with the label atheist then there's an atheist movement.",
">\n\nNo there isn't lmao. He used \"we\" to refer to atheists in general, of which he is also an atheist. If by movement you mean \"there's a lot of people becoming atheists\" then I agree.\nAll the dude was saying is that \"we atheists who only share a disbelief in God aren't trying to do anything else collectively like a crusade\" that doesn't imply group cohesiveness at all.",
">\n\n\nIt is cristal clear to me now that the Atheist concept of people freeing themselves from the shakles of dogmatic faith to embrace rationality, empiricism and secular philosophy is complete and utter nonsense.\n\nBe careful prescribing this view onto atheists in general. There is no atheist council that decides what all atheists should do. \n\nThe decline of traditional organized religion has not translated into a comparable diffusion of rationalism, empiricism or even scientific literacy among the general population, on the contrary, pseudoscientific beliefs and general woo are at an all time high.\n\nSure, idk what this proves though. There is a general move away from religion but it is happening for a large variety of reasons. \n\nI would be prepared to trade organized religion for a world of empiricism and humanism, but I'm not going to bring down the Church just to see people turn to mysticism, spiritism, ancient aliens, whitewashed buddhism, \"alternative medicine\", astrology and the likes.\n\nIdk why you're presenting this like it's only 2 alternatives. So let me get this straight. You've seen people fall for conspiracy theories and so you've become a Christian? What?\n\nInstitutions like the Catholic Church and others while sometimes corrupt and inefficient can bring people together to do some good and increase social trust while even bridging the gap between Science and Religion, many scientific accomplishments have been achieved under the guidance of the Catholic Church after all.\n\nCertainly, and they can also cause atrocities. Many scientific achievements were stifled under the catholic church too don't forget. Not sure what point this proves. \n\nIndividualized mysticism or spiritism does none of that while leaving people vulnerable all kinds of dumb ideas about health and the very nature of the universe.\n\nHow does it not? It doesn't inherently push them to conspiracy as you seem to believe.\nAlso it strikes me as odd that you say \"well I want everyone to be analytical but given people aren't ill just not be either and turn to religion\"",
">\n\nThe \"Atheist Movement\" didn't fail completely because there never really was an \"Atheist Movement.\"\nThere were newsgroups and subreddits, sure, like alt.atheism and r/atheism. And in those places, most participants were \"agnostic atheists,\" meaning, basically, \"Christians, I'm not buying what you're selling. It sounds like nonsense. Get off my back about it.\"\nAnd that largely succeeded. American Christianity is much smaller and much quieter than it was thirty years ago, and Christians are more off-our-backs than ever before.\nI agree that our communities have largely collapsed and people are more isolated and alone and miserable than ever before. But there are a dozen reasons for that - smartphones being one, the media culture of fear another - and you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.",
">\n\n\nand you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.\n\nI think you can lay at least some of it at the feet of atheism, for the same reason Nietzsche pondered in Zarathustra when he say \"God is dead, and we have killed him.\" \nGod may not exist outside the minds of men, and yet if we measure a thing by the effects it has on the world, the concept of God within the minds of men is one of the most powerful forces on earth, slaying millions and subjugating peoples across the globe, while also providing billions with comfort and a sense of purpose and meaning. \nNietzsche's observation was that removing this concept from the minds of men, \"killing God,\" would have profound implications upon how society is structured and functions. It would either be replaced with something that met those same needs, or society would suffer from those needs being unmet. In his time, it was mostly the educated classes for whom God was dead, yet they played along as God justified their station in life.\nNow we mostly have killed God, and the consequences are evident. There is no longer a common, underlying shared belief among a majority of the masses. It did not matter whether it was true per se, but it provided stability and at least a modicum of mutual respect across political parties. Now that we don't even have that, there are less barriers to \"by any means necessary\" strategies, such as we saw on Jan 6.",
">\n\nFirstly, being an atheist isn't a movement, so your view is inaccurate and thus should already be changed.\nBut beyond that...\nThere are more atheist YoY every single year than the year prior by every research study that comes about, so it sounds like atheism is far from failing, and instead becoming quite successful as spreading into common belief (or lack thereof).",
">\n\n\nFirstly, being an atheist isn't a movement\n\nIt was ten to fifteen years ago. \nI personally was a part of at least two groups of hundreds of thousands people online highly engaged in the media battles of the time : Atheist Republic and Atheist United. The groups were constantly closed and closed again by sic Facebook and replenished in only a matter of days. You would see persons like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins all over medias on highly controversial topics, daring to say things that were intolerable on TV at the time when they were only common sense. The satanist church (which is an atheist advocacy group, not a real satanist organization) was constantly suing boards and states over interdictions of scientific material in schools. The pastafarian (joke) cult, that was also against biasing public debates in favor of Christianity over other religions and lack of any religion -one of the biggest coups was to allow non believers to have as much extra leaves as religious people had for religious purposes.\nAll of this just to say : there was one, and it was crazy and fun.",
">\n\n\nTL;DR: Atheism would be great if people were into science and philosophy\n\nAs a PhD candidate in philosophy, believe me when I say that atheists getting more into philosophy will not make them more palatable to you.",
">\n\nDon't you guys learn religion as part of your Philosophy. Eastern/Western Thought, Bushism, Abrahamic Religion, Descartes, Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche? Or am I mistaken?",
">\n\nYou don't need a movement to be atheist. I was brought up without a religion so it's normal to me. I don't see what all the fuss is about, it takes zero effort to not follow any religion if you never were immersed in one in the first place.\nIt's different if you're trying to escape a religion, but that's not all atheists. Perhaps the movement you're thinking about is for ex-religious types?"
] |
>
It did once, but not anymore, I like to think of myself as a pragmatist. For example the very idea of free will is laughable to me from a scientific standpoint and yet I live my life under the assumption that I have agency and I'm sure most people do as well, it's just an healthier way to live your life and generally improves individual and societal outcomes. | [
"To /u/GancioTheRanter, Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.\nIn our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest:\n\nInstead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest.\nSteelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words.\nAvoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a delta before proceeding.\nAsk questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong.\n\nPlease also take a moment to review our Rule B guidelines and really ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track. Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and understand why others think differently than you do.",
">\n\nWhat is the \"atheist movement\", can you explain that?\nAtheism is the lack of believe in all god concepts, atheist hold no responsibility to provide evidence of how anything came to be.",
">\n\nYeah pretty much this... atheism is not a \"movement\" . It is not like we are trying to recreate an atheist version of The Crusades and get rid of every religious person",
">\n\nThis isn't the gotcha you think it is lmao",
">\n\nWould you use \"we\" to refer to the people that dislike the same foods you dislike? If many people identify themselves with the label atheist then there's an atheist movement.",
">\n\nNo there isn't lmao. He used \"we\" to refer to atheists in general, of which he is also an atheist. If by movement you mean \"there's a lot of people becoming atheists\" then I agree.\nAll the dude was saying is that \"we atheists who only share a disbelief in God aren't trying to do anything else collectively like a crusade\" that doesn't imply group cohesiveness at all.",
">\n\n\nIt is cristal clear to me now that the Atheist concept of people freeing themselves from the shakles of dogmatic faith to embrace rationality, empiricism and secular philosophy is complete and utter nonsense.\n\nBe careful prescribing this view onto atheists in general. There is no atheist council that decides what all atheists should do. \n\nThe decline of traditional organized religion has not translated into a comparable diffusion of rationalism, empiricism or even scientific literacy among the general population, on the contrary, pseudoscientific beliefs and general woo are at an all time high.\n\nSure, idk what this proves though. There is a general move away from religion but it is happening for a large variety of reasons. \n\nI would be prepared to trade organized religion for a world of empiricism and humanism, but I'm not going to bring down the Church just to see people turn to mysticism, spiritism, ancient aliens, whitewashed buddhism, \"alternative medicine\", astrology and the likes.\n\nIdk why you're presenting this like it's only 2 alternatives. So let me get this straight. You've seen people fall for conspiracy theories and so you've become a Christian? What?\n\nInstitutions like the Catholic Church and others while sometimes corrupt and inefficient can bring people together to do some good and increase social trust while even bridging the gap between Science and Religion, many scientific accomplishments have been achieved under the guidance of the Catholic Church after all.\n\nCertainly, and they can also cause atrocities. Many scientific achievements were stifled under the catholic church too don't forget. Not sure what point this proves. \n\nIndividualized mysticism or spiritism does none of that while leaving people vulnerable all kinds of dumb ideas about health and the very nature of the universe.\n\nHow does it not? It doesn't inherently push them to conspiracy as you seem to believe.\nAlso it strikes me as odd that you say \"well I want everyone to be analytical but given people aren't ill just not be either and turn to religion\"",
">\n\nThe \"Atheist Movement\" didn't fail completely because there never really was an \"Atheist Movement.\"\nThere were newsgroups and subreddits, sure, like alt.atheism and r/atheism. And in those places, most participants were \"agnostic atheists,\" meaning, basically, \"Christians, I'm not buying what you're selling. It sounds like nonsense. Get off my back about it.\"\nAnd that largely succeeded. American Christianity is much smaller and much quieter than it was thirty years ago, and Christians are more off-our-backs than ever before.\nI agree that our communities have largely collapsed and people are more isolated and alone and miserable than ever before. But there are a dozen reasons for that - smartphones being one, the media culture of fear another - and you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.",
">\n\n\nand you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.\n\nI think you can lay at least some of it at the feet of atheism, for the same reason Nietzsche pondered in Zarathustra when he say \"God is dead, and we have killed him.\" \nGod may not exist outside the minds of men, and yet if we measure a thing by the effects it has on the world, the concept of God within the minds of men is one of the most powerful forces on earth, slaying millions and subjugating peoples across the globe, while also providing billions with comfort and a sense of purpose and meaning. \nNietzsche's observation was that removing this concept from the minds of men, \"killing God,\" would have profound implications upon how society is structured and functions. It would either be replaced with something that met those same needs, or society would suffer from those needs being unmet. In his time, it was mostly the educated classes for whom God was dead, yet they played along as God justified their station in life.\nNow we mostly have killed God, and the consequences are evident. There is no longer a common, underlying shared belief among a majority of the masses. It did not matter whether it was true per se, but it provided stability and at least a modicum of mutual respect across political parties. Now that we don't even have that, there are less barriers to \"by any means necessary\" strategies, such as we saw on Jan 6.",
">\n\nFirstly, being an atheist isn't a movement, so your view is inaccurate and thus should already be changed.\nBut beyond that...\nThere are more atheist YoY every single year than the year prior by every research study that comes about, so it sounds like atheism is far from failing, and instead becoming quite successful as spreading into common belief (or lack thereof).",
">\n\n\nFirstly, being an atheist isn't a movement\n\nIt was ten to fifteen years ago. \nI personally was a part of at least two groups of hundreds of thousands people online highly engaged in the media battles of the time : Atheist Republic and Atheist United. The groups were constantly closed and closed again by sic Facebook and replenished in only a matter of days. You would see persons like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins all over medias on highly controversial topics, daring to say things that were intolerable on TV at the time when they were only common sense. The satanist church (which is an atheist advocacy group, not a real satanist organization) was constantly suing boards and states over interdictions of scientific material in schools. The pastafarian (joke) cult, that was also against biasing public debates in favor of Christianity over other religions and lack of any religion -one of the biggest coups was to allow non believers to have as much extra leaves as religious people had for religious purposes.\nAll of this just to say : there was one, and it was crazy and fun.",
">\n\n\nTL;DR: Atheism would be great if people were into science and philosophy\n\nAs a PhD candidate in philosophy, believe me when I say that atheists getting more into philosophy will not make them more palatable to you.",
">\n\nDon't you guys learn religion as part of your Philosophy. Eastern/Western Thought, Bushism, Abrahamic Religion, Descartes, Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche? Or am I mistaken?",
">\n\nYou don't need a movement to be atheist. I was brought up without a religion so it's normal to me. I don't see what all the fuss is about, it takes zero effort to not follow any religion if you never were immersed in one in the first place.\nIt's different if you're trying to escape a religion, but that's not all atheists. Perhaps the movement you're thinking about is for ex-religious types?",
">\n\nDoes, whether a belief is true, matter to you?"
] |
>
It did once, but not anymore, I like to think of myself as a pragmatist.
So why are you mad about conspiracy theorists or all the other groups you mentioned?
You also don't strike me as a believer if you're only doing it "for the societal outcomes". | [
"To /u/GancioTheRanter, Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.\nIn our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest:\n\nInstead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest.\nSteelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words.\nAvoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a delta before proceeding.\nAsk questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong.\n\nPlease also take a moment to review our Rule B guidelines and really ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track. Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and understand why others think differently than you do.",
">\n\nWhat is the \"atheist movement\", can you explain that?\nAtheism is the lack of believe in all god concepts, atheist hold no responsibility to provide evidence of how anything came to be.",
">\n\nYeah pretty much this... atheism is not a \"movement\" . It is not like we are trying to recreate an atheist version of The Crusades and get rid of every religious person",
">\n\nThis isn't the gotcha you think it is lmao",
">\n\nWould you use \"we\" to refer to the people that dislike the same foods you dislike? If many people identify themselves with the label atheist then there's an atheist movement.",
">\n\nNo there isn't lmao. He used \"we\" to refer to atheists in general, of which he is also an atheist. If by movement you mean \"there's a lot of people becoming atheists\" then I agree.\nAll the dude was saying is that \"we atheists who only share a disbelief in God aren't trying to do anything else collectively like a crusade\" that doesn't imply group cohesiveness at all.",
">\n\n\nIt is cristal clear to me now that the Atheist concept of people freeing themselves from the shakles of dogmatic faith to embrace rationality, empiricism and secular philosophy is complete and utter nonsense.\n\nBe careful prescribing this view onto atheists in general. There is no atheist council that decides what all atheists should do. \n\nThe decline of traditional organized religion has not translated into a comparable diffusion of rationalism, empiricism or even scientific literacy among the general population, on the contrary, pseudoscientific beliefs and general woo are at an all time high.\n\nSure, idk what this proves though. There is a general move away from religion but it is happening for a large variety of reasons. \n\nI would be prepared to trade organized religion for a world of empiricism and humanism, but I'm not going to bring down the Church just to see people turn to mysticism, spiritism, ancient aliens, whitewashed buddhism, \"alternative medicine\", astrology and the likes.\n\nIdk why you're presenting this like it's only 2 alternatives. So let me get this straight. You've seen people fall for conspiracy theories and so you've become a Christian? What?\n\nInstitutions like the Catholic Church and others while sometimes corrupt and inefficient can bring people together to do some good and increase social trust while even bridging the gap between Science and Religion, many scientific accomplishments have been achieved under the guidance of the Catholic Church after all.\n\nCertainly, and they can also cause atrocities. Many scientific achievements were stifled under the catholic church too don't forget. Not sure what point this proves. \n\nIndividualized mysticism or spiritism does none of that while leaving people vulnerable all kinds of dumb ideas about health and the very nature of the universe.\n\nHow does it not? It doesn't inherently push them to conspiracy as you seem to believe.\nAlso it strikes me as odd that you say \"well I want everyone to be analytical but given people aren't ill just not be either and turn to religion\"",
">\n\nThe \"Atheist Movement\" didn't fail completely because there never really was an \"Atheist Movement.\"\nThere were newsgroups and subreddits, sure, like alt.atheism and r/atheism. And in those places, most participants were \"agnostic atheists,\" meaning, basically, \"Christians, I'm not buying what you're selling. It sounds like nonsense. Get off my back about it.\"\nAnd that largely succeeded. American Christianity is much smaller and much quieter than it was thirty years ago, and Christians are more off-our-backs than ever before.\nI agree that our communities have largely collapsed and people are more isolated and alone and miserable than ever before. But there are a dozen reasons for that - smartphones being one, the media culture of fear another - and you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.",
">\n\n\nand you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.\n\nI think you can lay at least some of it at the feet of atheism, for the same reason Nietzsche pondered in Zarathustra when he say \"God is dead, and we have killed him.\" \nGod may not exist outside the minds of men, and yet if we measure a thing by the effects it has on the world, the concept of God within the minds of men is one of the most powerful forces on earth, slaying millions and subjugating peoples across the globe, while also providing billions with comfort and a sense of purpose and meaning. \nNietzsche's observation was that removing this concept from the minds of men, \"killing God,\" would have profound implications upon how society is structured and functions. It would either be replaced with something that met those same needs, or society would suffer from those needs being unmet. In his time, it was mostly the educated classes for whom God was dead, yet they played along as God justified their station in life.\nNow we mostly have killed God, and the consequences are evident. There is no longer a common, underlying shared belief among a majority of the masses. It did not matter whether it was true per se, but it provided stability and at least a modicum of mutual respect across political parties. Now that we don't even have that, there are less barriers to \"by any means necessary\" strategies, such as we saw on Jan 6.",
">\n\nFirstly, being an atheist isn't a movement, so your view is inaccurate and thus should already be changed.\nBut beyond that...\nThere are more atheist YoY every single year than the year prior by every research study that comes about, so it sounds like atheism is far from failing, and instead becoming quite successful as spreading into common belief (or lack thereof).",
">\n\n\nFirstly, being an atheist isn't a movement\n\nIt was ten to fifteen years ago. \nI personally was a part of at least two groups of hundreds of thousands people online highly engaged in the media battles of the time : Atheist Republic and Atheist United. The groups were constantly closed and closed again by sic Facebook and replenished in only a matter of days. You would see persons like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins all over medias on highly controversial topics, daring to say things that were intolerable on TV at the time when they were only common sense. The satanist church (which is an atheist advocacy group, not a real satanist organization) was constantly suing boards and states over interdictions of scientific material in schools. The pastafarian (joke) cult, that was also against biasing public debates in favor of Christianity over other religions and lack of any religion -one of the biggest coups was to allow non believers to have as much extra leaves as religious people had for religious purposes.\nAll of this just to say : there was one, and it was crazy and fun.",
">\n\n\nTL;DR: Atheism would be great if people were into science and philosophy\n\nAs a PhD candidate in philosophy, believe me when I say that atheists getting more into philosophy will not make them more palatable to you.",
">\n\nDon't you guys learn religion as part of your Philosophy. Eastern/Western Thought, Bushism, Abrahamic Religion, Descartes, Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche? Or am I mistaken?",
">\n\nYou don't need a movement to be atheist. I was brought up without a religion so it's normal to me. I don't see what all the fuss is about, it takes zero effort to not follow any religion if you never were immersed in one in the first place.\nIt's different if you're trying to escape a religion, but that's not all atheists. Perhaps the movement you're thinking about is for ex-religious types?",
">\n\nDoes, whether a belief is true, matter to you?",
">\n\nIt did once, but not anymore, I like to think of myself as a pragmatist. For example the very idea of free will is laughable to me from a scientific standpoint and yet I live my life under the assumption that I have agency and I'm sure most people do as well, it's just an healthier way to live your life and generally improves individual and societal outcomes."
] |
>
I specified that I got closer to christian culture not necessairly christian beliefs, I dislike conspiracy theorists because they are wrong and an obvious threat to rule of law and prosperity, january the 6th rings any bells? | [
"To /u/GancioTheRanter, Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.\nIn our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest:\n\nInstead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest.\nSteelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words.\nAvoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a delta before proceeding.\nAsk questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong.\n\nPlease also take a moment to review our Rule B guidelines and really ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track. Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and understand why others think differently than you do.",
">\n\nWhat is the \"atheist movement\", can you explain that?\nAtheism is the lack of believe in all god concepts, atheist hold no responsibility to provide evidence of how anything came to be.",
">\n\nYeah pretty much this... atheism is not a \"movement\" . It is not like we are trying to recreate an atheist version of The Crusades and get rid of every religious person",
">\n\nThis isn't the gotcha you think it is lmao",
">\n\nWould you use \"we\" to refer to the people that dislike the same foods you dislike? If many people identify themselves with the label atheist then there's an atheist movement.",
">\n\nNo there isn't lmao. He used \"we\" to refer to atheists in general, of which he is also an atheist. If by movement you mean \"there's a lot of people becoming atheists\" then I agree.\nAll the dude was saying is that \"we atheists who only share a disbelief in God aren't trying to do anything else collectively like a crusade\" that doesn't imply group cohesiveness at all.",
">\n\n\nIt is cristal clear to me now that the Atheist concept of people freeing themselves from the shakles of dogmatic faith to embrace rationality, empiricism and secular philosophy is complete and utter nonsense.\n\nBe careful prescribing this view onto atheists in general. There is no atheist council that decides what all atheists should do. \n\nThe decline of traditional organized religion has not translated into a comparable diffusion of rationalism, empiricism or even scientific literacy among the general population, on the contrary, pseudoscientific beliefs and general woo are at an all time high.\n\nSure, idk what this proves though. There is a general move away from religion but it is happening for a large variety of reasons. \n\nI would be prepared to trade organized religion for a world of empiricism and humanism, but I'm not going to bring down the Church just to see people turn to mysticism, spiritism, ancient aliens, whitewashed buddhism, \"alternative medicine\", astrology and the likes.\n\nIdk why you're presenting this like it's only 2 alternatives. So let me get this straight. You've seen people fall for conspiracy theories and so you've become a Christian? What?\n\nInstitutions like the Catholic Church and others while sometimes corrupt and inefficient can bring people together to do some good and increase social trust while even bridging the gap between Science and Religion, many scientific accomplishments have been achieved under the guidance of the Catholic Church after all.\n\nCertainly, and they can also cause atrocities. Many scientific achievements were stifled under the catholic church too don't forget. Not sure what point this proves. \n\nIndividualized mysticism or spiritism does none of that while leaving people vulnerable all kinds of dumb ideas about health and the very nature of the universe.\n\nHow does it not? It doesn't inherently push them to conspiracy as you seem to believe.\nAlso it strikes me as odd that you say \"well I want everyone to be analytical but given people aren't ill just not be either and turn to religion\"",
">\n\nThe \"Atheist Movement\" didn't fail completely because there never really was an \"Atheist Movement.\"\nThere were newsgroups and subreddits, sure, like alt.atheism and r/atheism. And in those places, most participants were \"agnostic atheists,\" meaning, basically, \"Christians, I'm not buying what you're selling. It sounds like nonsense. Get off my back about it.\"\nAnd that largely succeeded. American Christianity is much smaller and much quieter than it was thirty years ago, and Christians are more off-our-backs than ever before.\nI agree that our communities have largely collapsed and people are more isolated and alone and miserable than ever before. But there are a dozen reasons for that - smartphones being one, the media culture of fear another - and you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.",
">\n\n\nand you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.\n\nI think you can lay at least some of it at the feet of atheism, for the same reason Nietzsche pondered in Zarathustra when he say \"God is dead, and we have killed him.\" \nGod may not exist outside the minds of men, and yet if we measure a thing by the effects it has on the world, the concept of God within the minds of men is one of the most powerful forces on earth, slaying millions and subjugating peoples across the globe, while also providing billions with comfort and a sense of purpose and meaning. \nNietzsche's observation was that removing this concept from the minds of men, \"killing God,\" would have profound implications upon how society is structured and functions. It would either be replaced with something that met those same needs, or society would suffer from those needs being unmet. In his time, it was mostly the educated classes for whom God was dead, yet they played along as God justified their station in life.\nNow we mostly have killed God, and the consequences are evident. There is no longer a common, underlying shared belief among a majority of the masses. It did not matter whether it was true per se, but it provided stability and at least a modicum of mutual respect across political parties. Now that we don't even have that, there are less barriers to \"by any means necessary\" strategies, such as we saw on Jan 6.",
">\n\nFirstly, being an atheist isn't a movement, so your view is inaccurate and thus should already be changed.\nBut beyond that...\nThere are more atheist YoY every single year than the year prior by every research study that comes about, so it sounds like atheism is far from failing, and instead becoming quite successful as spreading into common belief (or lack thereof).",
">\n\n\nFirstly, being an atheist isn't a movement\n\nIt was ten to fifteen years ago. \nI personally was a part of at least two groups of hundreds of thousands people online highly engaged in the media battles of the time : Atheist Republic and Atheist United. The groups were constantly closed and closed again by sic Facebook and replenished in only a matter of days. You would see persons like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins all over medias on highly controversial topics, daring to say things that were intolerable on TV at the time when they were only common sense. The satanist church (which is an atheist advocacy group, not a real satanist organization) was constantly suing boards and states over interdictions of scientific material in schools. The pastafarian (joke) cult, that was also against biasing public debates in favor of Christianity over other religions and lack of any religion -one of the biggest coups was to allow non believers to have as much extra leaves as religious people had for religious purposes.\nAll of this just to say : there was one, and it was crazy and fun.",
">\n\n\nTL;DR: Atheism would be great if people were into science and philosophy\n\nAs a PhD candidate in philosophy, believe me when I say that atheists getting more into philosophy will not make them more palatable to you.",
">\n\nDon't you guys learn religion as part of your Philosophy. Eastern/Western Thought, Bushism, Abrahamic Religion, Descartes, Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche? Or am I mistaken?",
">\n\nYou don't need a movement to be atheist. I was brought up without a religion so it's normal to me. I don't see what all the fuss is about, it takes zero effort to not follow any religion if you never were immersed in one in the first place.\nIt's different if you're trying to escape a religion, but that's not all atheists. Perhaps the movement you're thinking about is for ex-religious types?",
">\n\nDoes, whether a belief is true, matter to you?",
">\n\nIt did once, but not anymore, I like to think of myself as a pragmatist. For example the very idea of free will is laughable to me from a scientific standpoint and yet I live my life under the assumption that I have agency and I'm sure most people do as well, it's just an healthier way to live your life and generally improves individual and societal outcomes.",
">\n\n\nIt did once, but not anymore, I like to think of myself as a pragmatist.\n\nSo why are you mad about conspiracy theorists or all the other groups you mentioned?\nYou also don't strike me as a believer if you're only doing it \"for the societal outcomes\"."
] |
>
OP: I don't care about truth
Also OP: I dislike X group because they don't believe in truth | [
"To /u/GancioTheRanter, Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.\nIn our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest:\n\nInstead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest.\nSteelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words.\nAvoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a delta before proceeding.\nAsk questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong.\n\nPlease also take a moment to review our Rule B guidelines and really ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track. Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and understand why others think differently than you do.",
">\n\nWhat is the \"atheist movement\", can you explain that?\nAtheism is the lack of believe in all god concepts, atheist hold no responsibility to provide evidence of how anything came to be.",
">\n\nYeah pretty much this... atheism is not a \"movement\" . It is not like we are trying to recreate an atheist version of The Crusades and get rid of every religious person",
">\n\nThis isn't the gotcha you think it is lmao",
">\n\nWould you use \"we\" to refer to the people that dislike the same foods you dislike? If many people identify themselves with the label atheist then there's an atheist movement.",
">\n\nNo there isn't lmao. He used \"we\" to refer to atheists in general, of which he is also an atheist. If by movement you mean \"there's a lot of people becoming atheists\" then I agree.\nAll the dude was saying is that \"we atheists who only share a disbelief in God aren't trying to do anything else collectively like a crusade\" that doesn't imply group cohesiveness at all.",
">\n\n\nIt is cristal clear to me now that the Atheist concept of people freeing themselves from the shakles of dogmatic faith to embrace rationality, empiricism and secular philosophy is complete and utter nonsense.\n\nBe careful prescribing this view onto atheists in general. There is no atheist council that decides what all atheists should do. \n\nThe decline of traditional organized religion has not translated into a comparable diffusion of rationalism, empiricism or even scientific literacy among the general population, on the contrary, pseudoscientific beliefs and general woo are at an all time high.\n\nSure, idk what this proves though. There is a general move away from religion but it is happening for a large variety of reasons. \n\nI would be prepared to trade organized religion for a world of empiricism and humanism, but I'm not going to bring down the Church just to see people turn to mysticism, spiritism, ancient aliens, whitewashed buddhism, \"alternative medicine\", astrology and the likes.\n\nIdk why you're presenting this like it's only 2 alternatives. So let me get this straight. You've seen people fall for conspiracy theories and so you've become a Christian? What?\n\nInstitutions like the Catholic Church and others while sometimes corrupt and inefficient can bring people together to do some good and increase social trust while even bridging the gap between Science and Religion, many scientific accomplishments have been achieved under the guidance of the Catholic Church after all.\n\nCertainly, and they can also cause atrocities. Many scientific achievements were stifled under the catholic church too don't forget. Not sure what point this proves. \n\nIndividualized mysticism or spiritism does none of that while leaving people vulnerable all kinds of dumb ideas about health and the very nature of the universe.\n\nHow does it not? It doesn't inherently push them to conspiracy as you seem to believe.\nAlso it strikes me as odd that you say \"well I want everyone to be analytical but given people aren't ill just not be either and turn to religion\"",
">\n\nThe \"Atheist Movement\" didn't fail completely because there never really was an \"Atheist Movement.\"\nThere were newsgroups and subreddits, sure, like alt.atheism and r/atheism. And in those places, most participants were \"agnostic atheists,\" meaning, basically, \"Christians, I'm not buying what you're selling. It sounds like nonsense. Get off my back about it.\"\nAnd that largely succeeded. American Christianity is much smaller and much quieter than it was thirty years ago, and Christians are more off-our-backs than ever before.\nI agree that our communities have largely collapsed and people are more isolated and alone and miserable than ever before. But there are a dozen reasons for that - smartphones being one, the media culture of fear another - and you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.",
">\n\n\nand you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.\n\nI think you can lay at least some of it at the feet of atheism, for the same reason Nietzsche pondered in Zarathustra when he say \"God is dead, and we have killed him.\" \nGod may not exist outside the minds of men, and yet if we measure a thing by the effects it has on the world, the concept of God within the minds of men is one of the most powerful forces on earth, slaying millions and subjugating peoples across the globe, while also providing billions with comfort and a sense of purpose and meaning. \nNietzsche's observation was that removing this concept from the minds of men, \"killing God,\" would have profound implications upon how society is structured and functions. It would either be replaced with something that met those same needs, or society would suffer from those needs being unmet. In his time, it was mostly the educated classes for whom God was dead, yet they played along as God justified their station in life.\nNow we mostly have killed God, and the consequences are evident. There is no longer a common, underlying shared belief among a majority of the masses. It did not matter whether it was true per se, but it provided stability and at least a modicum of mutual respect across political parties. Now that we don't even have that, there are less barriers to \"by any means necessary\" strategies, such as we saw on Jan 6.",
">\n\nFirstly, being an atheist isn't a movement, so your view is inaccurate and thus should already be changed.\nBut beyond that...\nThere are more atheist YoY every single year than the year prior by every research study that comes about, so it sounds like atheism is far from failing, and instead becoming quite successful as spreading into common belief (or lack thereof).",
">\n\n\nFirstly, being an atheist isn't a movement\n\nIt was ten to fifteen years ago. \nI personally was a part of at least two groups of hundreds of thousands people online highly engaged in the media battles of the time : Atheist Republic and Atheist United. The groups were constantly closed and closed again by sic Facebook and replenished in only a matter of days. You would see persons like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins all over medias on highly controversial topics, daring to say things that were intolerable on TV at the time when they were only common sense. The satanist church (which is an atheist advocacy group, not a real satanist organization) was constantly suing boards and states over interdictions of scientific material in schools. The pastafarian (joke) cult, that was also against biasing public debates in favor of Christianity over other religions and lack of any religion -one of the biggest coups was to allow non believers to have as much extra leaves as religious people had for religious purposes.\nAll of this just to say : there was one, and it was crazy and fun.",
">\n\n\nTL;DR: Atheism would be great if people were into science and philosophy\n\nAs a PhD candidate in philosophy, believe me when I say that atheists getting more into philosophy will not make them more palatable to you.",
">\n\nDon't you guys learn religion as part of your Philosophy. Eastern/Western Thought, Bushism, Abrahamic Religion, Descartes, Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche? Or am I mistaken?",
">\n\nYou don't need a movement to be atheist. I was brought up without a religion so it's normal to me. I don't see what all the fuss is about, it takes zero effort to not follow any religion if you never were immersed in one in the first place.\nIt's different if you're trying to escape a religion, but that's not all atheists. Perhaps the movement you're thinking about is for ex-religious types?",
">\n\nDoes, whether a belief is true, matter to you?",
">\n\nIt did once, but not anymore, I like to think of myself as a pragmatist. For example the very idea of free will is laughable to me from a scientific standpoint and yet I live my life under the assumption that I have agency and I'm sure most people do as well, it's just an healthier way to live your life and generally improves individual and societal outcomes.",
">\n\n\nIt did once, but not anymore, I like to think of myself as a pragmatist.\n\nSo why are you mad about conspiracy theorists or all the other groups you mentioned?\nYou also don't strike me as a believer if you're only doing it \"for the societal outcomes\".",
">\n\nI specified that I got closer to christian culture not necessairly christian beliefs, I dislike conspiracy theorists because they are wrong and an obvious threat to rule of law and prosperity, january the 6th rings any bells?"
] |
>
There's a difference between abstract truths like whether God exists or the simulation hypothesis and whether the election was stolen | [
"To /u/GancioTheRanter, Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.\nIn our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest:\n\nInstead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest.\nSteelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words.\nAvoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a delta before proceeding.\nAsk questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong.\n\nPlease also take a moment to review our Rule B guidelines and really ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track. Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and understand why others think differently than you do.",
">\n\nWhat is the \"atheist movement\", can you explain that?\nAtheism is the lack of believe in all god concepts, atheist hold no responsibility to provide evidence of how anything came to be.",
">\n\nYeah pretty much this... atheism is not a \"movement\" . It is not like we are trying to recreate an atheist version of The Crusades and get rid of every religious person",
">\n\nThis isn't the gotcha you think it is lmao",
">\n\nWould you use \"we\" to refer to the people that dislike the same foods you dislike? If many people identify themselves with the label atheist then there's an atheist movement.",
">\n\nNo there isn't lmao. He used \"we\" to refer to atheists in general, of which he is also an atheist. If by movement you mean \"there's a lot of people becoming atheists\" then I agree.\nAll the dude was saying is that \"we atheists who only share a disbelief in God aren't trying to do anything else collectively like a crusade\" that doesn't imply group cohesiveness at all.",
">\n\n\nIt is cristal clear to me now that the Atheist concept of people freeing themselves from the shakles of dogmatic faith to embrace rationality, empiricism and secular philosophy is complete and utter nonsense.\n\nBe careful prescribing this view onto atheists in general. There is no atheist council that decides what all atheists should do. \n\nThe decline of traditional organized religion has not translated into a comparable diffusion of rationalism, empiricism or even scientific literacy among the general population, on the contrary, pseudoscientific beliefs and general woo are at an all time high.\n\nSure, idk what this proves though. There is a general move away from religion but it is happening for a large variety of reasons. \n\nI would be prepared to trade organized religion for a world of empiricism and humanism, but I'm not going to bring down the Church just to see people turn to mysticism, spiritism, ancient aliens, whitewashed buddhism, \"alternative medicine\", astrology and the likes.\n\nIdk why you're presenting this like it's only 2 alternatives. So let me get this straight. You've seen people fall for conspiracy theories and so you've become a Christian? What?\n\nInstitutions like the Catholic Church and others while sometimes corrupt and inefficient can bring people together to do some good and increase social trust while even bridging the gap between Science and Religion, many scientific accomplishments have been achieved under the guidance of the Catholic Church after all.\n\nCertainly, and they can also cause atrocities. Many scientific achievements were stifled under the catholic church too don't forget. Not sure what point this proves. \n\nIndividualized mysticism or spiritism does none of that while leaving people vulnerable all kinds of dumb ideas about health and the very nature of the universe.\n\nHow does it not? It doesn't inherently push them to conspiracy as you seem to believe.\nAlso it strikes me as odd that you say \"well I want everyone to be analytical but given people aren't ill just not be either and turn to religion\"",
">\n\nThe \"Atheist Movement\" didn't fail completely because there never really was an \"Atheist Movement.\"\nThere were newsgroups and subreddits, sure, like alt.atheism and r/atheism. And in those places, most participants were \"agnostic atheists,\" meaning, basically, \"Christians, I'm not buying what you're selling. It sounds like nonsense. Get off my back about it.\"\nAnd that largely succeeded. American Christianity is much smaller and much quieter than it was thirty years ago, and Christians are more off-our-backs than ever before.\nI agree that our communities have largely collapsed and people are more isolated and alone and miserable than ever before. But there are a dozen reasons for that - smartphones being one, the media culture of fear another - and you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.",
">\n\n\nand you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.\n\nI think you can lay at least some of it at the feet of atheism, for the same reason Nietzsche pondered in Zarathustra when he say \"God is dead, and we have killed him.\" \nGod may not exist outside the minds of men, and yet if we measure a thing by the effects it has on the world, the concept of God within the minds of men is one of the most powerful forces on earth, slaying millions and subjugating peoples across the globe, while also providing billions with comfort and a sense of purpose and meaning. \nNietzsche's observation was that removing this concept from the minds of men, \"killing God,\" would have profound implications upon how society is structured and functions. It would either be replaced with something that met those same needs, or society would suffer from those needs being unmet. In his time, it was mostly the educated classes for whom God was dead, yet they played along as God justified their station in life.\nNow we mostly have killed God, and the consequences are evident. There is no longer a common, underlying shared belief among a majority of the masses. It did not matter whether it was true per se, but it provided stability and at least a modicum of mutual respect across political parties. Now that we don't even have that, there are less barriers to \"by any means necessary\" strategies, such as we saw on Jan 6.",
">\n\nFirstly, being an atheist isn't a movement, so your view is inaccurate and thus should already be changed.\nBut beyond that...\nThere are more atheist YoY every single year than the year prior by every research study that comes about, so it sounds like atheism is far from failing, and instead becoming quite successful as spreading into common belief (or lack thereof).",
">\n\n\nFirstly, being an atheist isn't a movement\n\nIt was ten to fifteen years ago. \nI personally was a part of at least two groups of hundreds of thousands people online highly engaged in the media battles of the time : Atheist Republic and Atheist United. The groups were constantly closed and closed again by sic Facebook and replenished in only a matter of days. You would see persons like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins all over medias on highly controversial topics, daring to say things that were intolerable on TV at the time when they were only common sense. The satanist church (which is an atheist advocacy group, not a real satanist organization) was constantly suing boards and states over interdictions of scientific material in schools. The pastafarian (joke) cult, that was also against biasing public debates in favor of Christianity over other religions and lack of any religion -one of the biggest coups was to allow non believers to have as much extra leaves as religious people had for religious purposes.\nAll of this just to say : there was one, and it was crazy and fun.",
">\n\n\nTL;DR: Atheism would be great if people were into science and philosophy\n\nAs a PhD candidate in philosophy, believe me when I say that atheists getting more into philosophy will not make them more palatable to you.",
">\n\nDon't you guys learn religion as part of your Philosophy. Eastern/Western Thought, Bushism, Abrahamic Religion, Descartes, Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche? Or am I mistaken?",
">\n\nYou don't need a movement to be atheist. I was brought up without a religion so it's normal to me. I don't see what all the fuss is about, it takes zero effort to not follow any religion if you never were immersed in one in the first place.\nIt's different if you're trying to escape a religion, but that's not all atheists. Perhaps the movement you're thinking about is for ex-religious types?",
">\n\nDoes, whether a belief is true, matter to you?",
">\n\nIt did once, but not anymore, I like to think of myself as a pragmatist. For example the very idea of free will is laughable to me from a scientific standpoint and yet I live my life under the assumption that I have agency and I'm sure most people do as well, it's just an healthier way to live your life and generally improves individual and societal outcomes.",
">\n\n\nIt did once, but not anymore, I like to think of myself as a pragmatist.\n\nSo why are you mad about conspiracy theorists or all the other groups you mentioned?\nYou also don't strike me as a believer if you're only doing it \"for the societal outcomes\".",
">\n\nI specified that I got closer to christian culture not necessairly christian beliefs, I dislike conspiracy theorists because they are wrong and an obvious threat to rule of law and prosperity, january the 6th rings any bells?",
">\n\nOP: I don't care about truth\nAlso OP: I dislike X group because they don't believe in truth"
] |
>
First, that's an abstract idea, not a truth. And sure, lies about recent history aside, you still show a disdain for other types of abstract ideas, like mysticism, aliens, and astrology. The inconsistency is why would these concepts gaining traction bother you, if you don't care about truth regarding these types of ideas (the type that doesn't have a concrete effect on your life either way) | [
"To /u/GancioTheRanter, Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.\nIn our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest:\n\nInstead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest.\nSteelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words.\nAvoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a delta before proceeding.\nAsk questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong.\n\nPlease also take a moment to review our Rule B guidelines and really ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track. Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and understand why others think differently than you do.",
">\n\nWhat is the \"atheist movement\", can you explain that?\nAtheism is the lack of believe in all god concepts, atheist hold no responsibility to provide evidence of how anything came to be.",
">\n\nYeah pretty much this... atheism is not a \"movement\" . It is not like we are trying to recreate an atheist version of The Crusades and get rid of every religious person",
">\n\nThis isn't the gotcha you think it is lmao",
">\n\nWould you use \"we\" to refer to the people that dislike the same foods you dislike? If many people identify themselves with the label atheist then there's an atheist movement.",
">\n\nNo there isn't lmao. He used \"we\" to refer to atheists in general, of which he is also an atheist. If by movement you mean \"there's a lot of people becoming atheists\" then I agree.\nAll the dude was saying is that \"we atheists who only share a disbelief in God aren't trying to do anything else collectively like a crusade\" that doesn't imply group cohesiveness at all.",
">\n\n\nIt is cristal clear to me now that the Atheist concept of people freeing themselves from the shakles of dogmatic faith to embrace rationality, empiricism and secular philosophy is complete and utter nonsense.\n\nBe careful prescribing this view onto atheists in general. There is no atheist council that decides what all atheists should do. \n\nThe decline of traditional organized religion has not translated into a comparable diffusion of rationalism, empiricism or even scientific literacy among the general population, on the contrary, pseudoscientific beliefs and general woo are at an all time high.\n\nSure, idk what this proves though. There is a general move away from religion but it is happening for a large variety of reasons. \n\nI would be prepared to trade organized religion for a world of empiricism and humanism, but I'm not going to bring down the Church just to see people turn to mysticism, spiritism, ancient aliens, whitewashed buddhism, \"alternative medicine\", astrology and the likes.\n\nIdk why you're presenting this like it's only 2 alternatives. So let me get this straight. You've seen people fall for conspiracy theories and so you've become a Christian? What?\n\nInstitutions like the Catholic Church and others while sometimes corrupt and inefficient can bring people together to do some good and increase social trust while even bridging the gap between Science and Religion, many scientific accomplishments have been achieved under the guidance of the Catholic Church after all.\n\nCertainly, and they can also cause atrocities. Many scientific achievements were stifled under the catholic church too don't forget. Not sure what point this proves. \n\nIndividualized mysticism or spiritism does none of that while leaving people vulnerable all kinds of dumb ideas about health and the very nature of the universe.\n\nHow does it not? It doesn't inherently push them to conspiracy as you seem to believe.\nAlso it strikes me as odd that you say \"well I want everyone to be analytical but given people aren't ill just not be either and turn to religion\"",
">\n\nThe \"Atheist Movement\" didn't fail completely because there never really was an \"Atheist Movement.\"\nThere were newsgroups and subreddits, sure, like alt.atheism and r/atheism. And in those places, most participants were \"agnostic atheists,\" meaning, basically, \"Christians, I'm not buying what you're selling. It sounds like nonsense. Get off my back about it.\"\nAnd that largely succeeded. American Christianity is much smaller and much quieter than it was thirty years ago, and Christians are more off-our-backs than ever before.\nI agree that our communities have largely collapsed and people are more isolated and alone and miserable than ever before. But there are a dozen reasons for that - smartphones being one, the media culture of fear another - and you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.",
">\n\n\nand you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.\n\nI think you can lay at least some of it at the feet of atheism, for the same reason Nietzsche pondered in Zarathustra when he say \"God is dead, and we have killed him.\" \nGod may not exist outside the minds of men, and yet if we measure a thing by the effects it has on the world, the concept of God within the minds of men is one of the most powerful forces on earth, slaying millions and subjugating peoples across the globe, while also providing billions with comfort and a sense of purpose and meaning. \nNietzsche's observation was that removing this concept from the minds of men, \"killing God,\" would have profound implications upon how society is structured and functions. It would either be replaced with something that met those same needs, or society would suffer from those needs being unmet. In his time, it was mostly the educated classes for whom God was dead, yet they played along as God justified their station in life.\nNow we mostly have killed God, and the consequences are evident. There is no longer a common, underlying shared belief among a majority of the masses. It did not matter whether it was true per se, but it provided stability and at least a modicum of mutual respect across political parties. Now that we don't even have that, there are less barriers to \"by any means necessary\" strategies, such as we saw on Jan 6.",
">\n\nFirstly, being an atheist isn't a movement, so your view is inaccurate and thus should already be changed.\nBut beyond that...\nThere are more atheist YoY every single year than the year prior by every research study that comes about, so it sounds like atheism is far from failing, and instead becoming quite successful as spreading into common belief (or lack thereof).",
">\n\n\nFirstly, being an atheist isn't a movement\n\nIt was ten to fifteen years ago. \nI personally was a part of at least two groups of hundreds of thousands people online highly engaged in the media battles of the time : Atheist Republic and Atheist United. The groups were constantly closed and closed again by sic Facebook and replenished in only a matter of days. You would see persons like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins all over medias on highly controversial topics, daring to say things that were intolerable on TV at the time when they were only common sense. The satanist church (which is an atheist advocacy group, not a real satanist organization) was constantly suing boards and states over interdictions of scientific material in schools. The pastafarian (joke) cult, that was also against biasing public debates in favor of Christianity over other religions and lack of any religion -one of the biggest coups was to allow non believers to have as much extra leaves as religious people had for religious purposes.\nAll of this just to say : there was one, and it was crazy and fun.",
">\n\n\nTL;DR: Atheism would be great if people were into science and philosophy\n\nAs a PhD candidate in philosophy, believe me when I say that atheists getting more into philosophy will not make them more palatable to you.",
">\n\nDon't you guys learn religion as part of your Philosophy. Eastern/Western Thought, Bushism, Abrahamic Religion, Descartes, Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche? Or am I mistaken?",
">\n\nYou don't need a movement to be atheist. I was brought up without a religion so it's normal to me. I don't see what all the fuss is about, it takes zero effort to not follow any religion if you never were immersed in one in the first place.\nIt's different if you're trying to escape a religion, but that's not all atheists. Perhaps the movement you're thinking about is for ex-religious types?",
">\n\nDoes, whether a belief is true, matter to you?",
">\n\nIt did once, but not anymore, I like to think of myself as a pragmatist. For example the very idea of free will is laughable to me from a scientific standpoint and yet I live my life under the assumption that I have agency and I'm sure most people do as well, it's just an healthier way to live your life and generally improves individual and societal outcomes.",
">\n\n\nIt did once, but not anymore, I like to think of myself as a pragmatist.\n\nSo why are you mad about conspiracy theorists or all the other groups you mentioned?\nYou also don't strike me as a believer if you're only doing it \"for the societal outcomes\".",
">\n\nI specified that I got closer to christian culture not necessairly christian beliefs, I dislike conspiracy theorists because they are wrong and an obvious threat to rule of law and prosperity, january the 6th rings any bells?",
">\n\nOP: I don't care about truth\nAlso OP: I dislike X group because they don't believe in truth",
">\n\nThere's a difference between abstract truths like whether God exists or the simulation hypothesis and whether the election was stolen"
] |
>
I explained why I dislike the things you mentioned, they provide none of the benefits of organized religion while exposing people to cults, scams, pseudoscience, etc. This has a tangible negative effect on individuals and society. | [
"To /u/GancioTheRanter, Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.\nIn our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest:\n\nInstead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest.\nSteelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words.\nAvoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a delta before proceeding.\nAsk questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong.\n\nPlease also take a moment to review our Rule B guidelines and really ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track. Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and understand why others think differently than you do.",
">\n\nWhat is the \"atheist movement\", can you explain that?\nAtheism is the lack of believe in all god concepts, atheist hold no responsibility to provide evidence of how anything came to be.",
">\n\nYeah pretty much this... atheism is not a \"movement\" . It is not like we are trying to recreate an atheist version of The Crusades and get rid of every religious person",
">\n\nThis isn't the gotcha you think it is lmao",
">\n\nWould you use \"we\" to refer to the people that dislike the same foods you dislike? If many people identify themselves with the label atheist then there's an atheist movement.",
">\n\nNo there isn't lmao. He used \"we\" to refer to atheists in general, of which he is also an atheist. If by movement you mean \"there's a lot of people becoming atheists\" then I agree.\nAll the dude was saying is that \"we atheists who only share a disbelief in God aren't trying to do anything else collectively like a crusade\" that doesn't imply group cohesiveness at all.",
">\n\n\nIt is cristal clear to me now that the Atheist concept of people freeing themselves from the shakles of dogmatic faith to embrace rationality, empiricism and secular philosophy is complete and utter nonsense.\n\nBe careful prescribing this view onto atheists in general. There is no atheist council that decides what all atheists should do. \n\nThe decline of traditional organized religion has not translated into a comparable diffusion of rationalism, empiricism or even scientific literacy among the general population, on the contrary, pseudoscientific beliefs and general woo are at an all time high.\n\nSure, idk what this proves though. There is a general move away from religion but it is happening for a large variety of reasons. \n\nI would be prepared to trade organized religion for a world of empiricism and humanism, but I'm not going to bring down the Church just to see people turn to mysticism, spiritism, ancient aliens, whitewashed buddhism, \"alternative medicine\", astrology and the likes.\n\nIdk why you're presenting this like it's only 2 alternatives. So let me get this straight. You've seen people fall for conspiracy theories and so you've become a Christian? What?\n\nInstitutions like the Catholic Church and others while sometimes corrupt and inefficient can bring people together to do some good and increase social trust while even bridging the gap between Science and Religion, many scientific accomplishments have been achieved under the guidance of the Catholic Church after all.\n\nCertainly, and they can also cause atrocities. Many scientific achievements were stifled under the catholic church too don't forget. Not sure what point this proves. \n\nIndividualized mysticism or spiritism does none of that while leaving people vulnerable all kinds of dumb ideas about health and the very nature of the universe.\n\nHow does it not? It doesn't inherently push them to conspiracy as you seem to believe.\nAlso it strikes me as odd that you say \"well I want everyone to be analytical but given people aren't ill just not be either and turn to religion\"",
">\n\nThe \"Atheist Movement\" didn't fail completely because there never really was an \"Atheist Movement.\"\nThere were newsgroups and subreddits, sure, like alt.atheism and r/atheism. And in those places, most participants were \"agnostic atheists,\" meaning, basically, \"Christians, I'm not buying what you're selling. It sounds like nonsense. Get off my back about it.\"\nAnd that largely succeeded. American Christianity is much smaller and much quieter than it was thirty years ago, and Christians are more off-our-backs than ever before.\nI agree that our communities have largely collapsed and people are more isolated and alone and miserable than ever before. But there are a dozen reasons for that - smartphones being one, the media culture of fear another - and you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.",
">\n\n\nand you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.\n\nI think you can lay at least some of it at the feet of atheism, for the same reason Nietzsche pondered in Zarathustra when he say \"God is dead, and we have killed him.\" \nGod may not exist outside the minds of men, and yet if we measure a thing by the effects it has on the world, the concept of God within the minds of men is one of the most powerful forces on earth, slaying millions and subjugating peoples across the globe, while also providing billions with comfort and a sense of purpose and meaning. \nNietzsche's observation was that removing this concept from the minds of men, \"killing God,\" would have profound implications upon how society is structured and functions. It would either be replaced with something that met those same needs, or society would suffer from those needs being unmet. In his time, it was mostly the educated classes for whom God was dead, yet they played along as God justified their station in life.\nNow we mostly have killed God, and the consequences are evident. There is no longer a common, underlying shared belief among a majority of the masses. It did not matter whether it was true per se, but it provided stability and at least a modicum of mutual respect across political parties. Now that we don't even have that, there are less barriers to \"by any means necessary\" strategies, such as we saw on Jan 6.",
">\n\nFirstly, being an atheist isn't a movement, so your view is inaccurate and thus should already be changed.\nBut beyond that...\nThere are more atheist YoY every single year than the year prior by every research study that comes about, so it sounds like atheism is far from failing, and instead becoming quite successful as spreading into common belief (or lack thereof).",
">\n\n\nFirstly, being an atheist isn't a movement\n\nIt was ten to fifteen years ago. \nI personally was a part of at least two groups of hundreds of thousands people online highly engaged in the media battles of the time : Atheist Republic and Atheist United. The groups were constantly closed and closed again by sic Facebook and replenished in only a matter of days. You would see persons like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins all over medias on highly controversial topics, daring to say things that were intolerable on TV at the time when they were only common sense. The satanist church (which is an atheist advocacy group, not a real satanist organization) was constantly suing boards and states over interdictions of scientific material in schools. The pastafarian (joke) cult, that was also against biasing public debates in favor of Christianity over other religions and lack of any religion -one of the biggest coups was to allow non believers to have as much extra leaves as religious people had for religious purposes.\nAll of this just to say : there was one, and it was crazy and fun.",
">\n\n\nTL;DR: Atheism would be great if people were into science and philosophy\n\nAs a PhD candidate in philosophy, believe me when I say that atheists getting more into philosophy will not make them more palatable to you.",
">\n\nDon't you guys learn religion as part of your Philosophy. Eastern/Western Thought, Bushism, Abrahamic Religion, Descartes, Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche? Or am I mistaken?",
">\n\nYou don't need a movement to be atheist. I was brought up without a religion so it's normal to me. I don't see what all the fuss is about, it takes zero effort to not follow any religion if you never were immersed in one in the first place.\nIt's different if you're trying to escape a religion, but that's not all atheists. Perhaps the movement you're thinking about is for ex-religious types?",
">\n\nDoes, whether a belief is true, matter to you?",
">\n\nIt did once, but not anymore, I like to think of myself as a pragmatist. For example the very idea of free will is laughable to me from a scientific standpoint and yet I live my life under the assumption that I have agency and I'm sure most people do as well, it's just an healthier way to live your life and generally improves individual and societal outcomes.",
">\n\n\nIt did once, but not anymore, I like to think of myself as a pragmatist.\n\nSo why are you mad about conspiracy theorists or all the other groups you mentioned?\nYou also don't strike me as a believer if you're only doing it \"for the societal outcomes\".",
">\n\nI specified that I got closer to christian culture not necessairly christian beliefs, I dislike conspiracy theorists because they are wrong and an obvious threat to rule of law and prosperity, january the 6th rings any bells?",
">\n\nOP: I don't care about truth\nAlso OP: I dislike X group because they don't believe in truth",
">\n\nThere's a difference between abstract truths like whether God exists or the simulation hypothesis and whether the election was stolen",
">\n\nFirst, that's an abstract idea, not a truth. And sure, lies about recent history aside, you still show a disdain for other types of abstract ideas, like mysticism, aliens, and astrology. The inconsistency is why would these concepts gaining traction bother you, if you don't care about truth regarding these types of ideas (the type that doesn't have a concrete effect on your life either way)"
] |
>
Exactly, basically you're saying that they're demonstrably false, that their truth value = false, and therefore, only the negative outcomes of their existence are to be considered.
But it's also just your opinion, you claim they provide none of the benefits of trad. religion. And yet, believers in these ideas would disagree. They would say these ideas give them the exact same feelings of comfort, community, and security. These are benefits. The only difference here is that you have a hidden premise, the implicit "knowledge" that these are nothing more than scams / pseudoscience, so you can dismiss them out of hand. And organized religion shares the exact same risks as these other systems, scams/cults/pseudoscience.
I highly doubt you could demonstrate how these abstract concepts of supernatural mechanisms are any more tangibly negative or any less tangibly positive than organized religion. The only real difference between the categories is penetration, quantity not quality. | [
"To /u/GancioTheRanter, Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.\nIn our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest:\n\nInstead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest.\nSteelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words.\nAvoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a delta before proceeding.\nAsk questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong.\n\nPlease also take a moment to review our Rule B guidelines and really ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track. Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and understand why others think differently than you do.",
">\n\nWhat is the \"atheist movement\", can you explain that?\nAtheism is the lack of believe in all god concepts, atheist hold no responsibility to provide evidence of how anything came to be.",
">\n\nYeah pretty much this... atheism is not a \"movement\" . It is not like we are trying to recreate an atheist version of The Crusades and get rid of every religious person",
">\n\nThis isn't the gotcha you think it is lmao",
">\n\nWould you use \"we\" to refer to the people that dislike the same foods you dislike? If many people identify themselves with the label atheist then there's an atheist movement.",
">\n\nNo there isn't lmao. He used \"we\" to refer to atheists in general, of which he is also an atheist. If by movement you mean \"there's a lot of people becoming atheists\" then I agree.\nAll the dude was saying is that \"we atheists who only share a disbelief in God aren't trying to do anything else collectively like a crusade\" that doesn't imply group cohesiveness at all.",
">\n\n\nIt is cristal clear to me now that the Atheist concept of people freeing themselves from the shakles of dogmatic faith to embrace rationality, empiricism and secular philosophy is complete and utter nonsense.\n\nBe careful prescribing this view onto atheists in general. There is no atheist council that decides what all atheists should do. \n\nThe decline of traditional organized religion has not translated into a comparable diffusion of rationalism, empiricism or even scientific literacy among the general population, on the contrary, pseudoscientific beliefs and general woo are at an all time high.\n\nSure, idk what this proves though. There is a general move away from religion but it is happening for a large variety of reasons. \n\nI would be prepared to trade organized religion for a world of empiricism and humanism, but I'm not going to bring down the Church just to see people turn to mysticism, spiritism, ancient aliens, whitewashed buddhism, \"alternative medicine\", astrology and the likes.\n\nIdk why you're presenting this like it's only 2 alternatives. So let me get this straight. You've seen people fall for conspiracy theories and so you've become a Christian? What?\n\nInstitutions like the Catholic Church and others while sometimes corrupt and inefficient can bring people together to do some good and increase social trust while even bridging the gap between Science and Religion, many scientific accomplishments have been achieved under the guidance of the Catholic Church after all.\n\nCertainly, and they can also cause atrocities. Many scientific achievements were stifled under the catholic church too don't forget. Not sure what point this proves. \n\nIndividualized mysticism or spiritism does none of that while leaving people vulnerable all kinds of dumb ideas about health and the very nature of the universe.\n\nHow does it not? It doesn't inherently push them to conspiracy as you seem to believe.\nAlso it strikes me as odd that you say \"well I want everyone to be analytical but given people aren't ill just not be either and turn to religion\"",
">\n\nThe \"Atheist Movement\" didn't fail completely because there never really was an \"Atheist Movement.\"\nThere were newsgroups and subreddits, sure, like alt.atheism and r/atheism. And in those places, most participants were \"agnostic atheists,\" meaning, basically, \"Christians, I'm not buying what you're selling. It sounds like nonsense. Get off my back about it.\"\nAnd that largely succeeded. American Christianity is much smaller and much quieter than it was thirty years ago, and Christians are more off-our-backs than ever before.\nI agree that our communities have largely collapsed and people are more isolated and alone and miserable than ever before. But there are a dozen reasons for that - smartphones being one, the media culture of fear another - and you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.",
">\n\n\nand you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.\n\nI think you can lay at least some of it at the feet of atheism, for the same reason Nietzsche pondered in Zarathustra when he say \"God is dead, and we have killed him.\" \nGod may not exist outside the minds of men, and yet if we measure a thing by the effects it has on the world, the concept of God within the minds of men is one of the most powerful forces on earth, slaying millions and subjugating peoples across the globe, while also providing billions with comfort and a sense of purpose and meaning. \nNietzsche's observation was that removing this concept from the minds of men, \"killing God,\" would have profound implications upon how society is structured and functions. It would either be replaced with something that met those same needs, or society would suffer from those needs being unmet. In his time, it was mostly the educated classes for whom God was dead, yet they played along as God justified their station in life.\nNow we mostly have killed God, and the consequences are evident. There is no longer a common, underlying shared belief among a majority of the masses. It did not matter whether it was true per se, but it provided stability and at least a modicum of mutual respect across political parties. Now that we don't even have that, there are less barriers to \"by any means necessary\" strategies, such as we saw on Jan 6.",
">\n\nFirstly, being an atheist isn't a movement, so your view is inaccurate and thus should already be changed.\nBut beyond that...\nThere are more atheist YoY every single year than the year prior by every research study that comes about, so it sounds like atheism is far from failing, and instead becoming quite successful as spreading into common belief (or lack thereof).",
">\n\n\nFirstly, being an atheist isn't a movement\n\nIt was ten to fifteen years ago. \nI personally was a part of at least two groups of hundreds of thousands people online highly engaged in the media battles of the time : Atheist Republic and Atheist United. The groups were constantly closed and closed again by sic Facebook and replenished in only a matter of days. You would see persons like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins all over medias on highly controversial topics, daring to say things that were intolerable on TV at the time when they were only common sense. The satanist church (which is an atheist advocacy group, not a real satanist organization) was constantly suing boards and states over interdictions of scientific material in schools. The pastafarian (joke) cult, that was also against biasing public debates in favor of Christianity over other religions and lack of any religion -one of the biggest coups was to allow non believers to have as much extra leaves as religious people had for religious purposes.\nAll of this just to say : there was one, and it was crazy and fun.",
">\n\n\nTL;DR: Atheism would be great if people were into science and philosophy\n\nAs a PhD candidate in philosophy, believe me when I say that atheists getting more into philosophy will not make them more palatable to you.",
">\n\nDon't you guys learn religion as part of your Philosophy. Eastern/Western Thought, Bushism, Abrahamic Religion, Descartes, Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche? Or am I mistaken?",
">\n\nYou don't need a movement to be atheist. I was brought up without a religion so it's normal to me. I don't see what all the fuss is about, it takes zero effort to not follow any religion if you never were immersed in one in the first place.\nIt's different if you're trying to escape a religion, but that's not all atheists. Perhaps the movement you're thinking about is for ex-religious types?",
">\n\nDoes, whether a belief is true, matter to you?",
">\n\nIt did once, but not anymore, I like to think of myself as a pragmatist. For example the very idea of free will is laughable to me from a scientific standpoint and yet I live my life under the assumption that I have agency and I'm sure most people do as well, it's just an healthier way to live your life and generally improves individual and societal outcomes.",
">\n\n\nIt did once, but not anymore, I like to think of myself as a pragmatist.\n\nSo why are you mad about conspiracy theorists or all the other groups you mentioned?\nYou also don't strike me as a believer if you're only doing it \"for the societal outcomes\".",
">\n\nI specified that I got closer to christian culture not necessairly christian beliefs, I dislike conspiracy theorists because they are wrong and an obvious threat to rule of law and prosperity, january the 6th rings any bells?",
">\n\nOP: I don't care about truth\nAlso OP: I dislike X group because they don't believe in truth",
">\n\nThere's a difference between abstract truths like whether God exists or the simulation hypothesis and whether the election was stolen",
">\n\nFirst, that's an abstract idea, not a truth. And sure, lies about recent history aside, you still show a disdain for other types of abstract ideas, like mysticism, aliens, and astrology. The inconsistency is why would these concepts gaining traction bother you, if you don't care about truth regarding these types of ideas (the type that doesn't have a concrete effect on your life either way)",
">\n\nI explained why I dislike the things you mentioned, they provide none of the benefits of organized religion while exposing people to cults, scams, pseudoscience, etc. This has a tangible negative effect on individuals and society."
] |
>
What movement? Are you talking about like reddit atheists or people who clung to certain pop culture figures? All that was/is people moving away from growing up in mostly Christian households and being like yeah I'm not doing that shit anymore. It's a rejection of what they experienced.
Is the "atheist movement" pushing anything in particular? I think this view is you sort of pushing this sort of culture war or war of ideas as if most people who don't believe in God care about what religious people do besides like imposing their views on others through laws.
I find with these sort of views is an OP is trying to justify why their belief system and shift is valid and right, but really nobody cares. Good for you for finding that Christianity helps you. As someone who doesn't think about God or religion I couldn't care less. I don't think I've come across people with strong views on religion that haven't been subject to it growing up or have decided to make that their one internet talking point to rant about.
I'm sure around a decade ago or more there was much more fanfare around atheism. Especially around the release of The God Delusion, but really that sort of smug we know better thinking died out. And really it seemed only confined to like 4 media personalities from what I can remember. Dawkins, Hitchens, Sam Harris and Bill Maher.
The whole sort of new atheism thing. But that was almost two decades ago now. And touches none of what you complain about. | [
"To /u/GancioTheRanter, Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.\nIn our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest:\n\nInstead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest.\nSteelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words.\nAvoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a delta before proceeding.\nAsk questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong.\n\nPlease also take a moment to review our Rule B guidelines and really ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track. Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and understand why others think differently than you do.",
">\n\nWhat is the \"atheist movement\", can you explain that?\nAtheism is the lack of believe in all god concepts, atheist hold no responsibility to provide evidence of how anything came to be.",
">\n\nYeah pretty much this... atheism is not a \"movement\" . It is not like we are trying to recreate an atheist version of The Crusades and get rid of every religious person",
">\n\nThis isn't the gotcha you think it is lmao",
">\n\nWould you use \"we\" to refer to the people that dislike the same foods you dislike? If many people identify themselves with the label atheist then there's an atheist movement.",
">\n\nNo there isn't lmao. He used \"we\" to refer to atheists in general, of which he is also an atheist. If by movement you mean \"there's a lot of people becoming atheists\" then I agree.\nAll the dude was saying is that \"we atheists who only share a disbelief in God aren't trying to do anything else collectively like a crusade\" that doesn't imply group cohesiveness at all.",
">\n\n\nIt is cristal clear to me now that the Atheist concept of people freeing themselves from the shakles of dogmatic faith to embrace rationality, empiricism and secular philosophy is complete and utter nonsense.\n\nBe careful prescribing this view onto atheists in general. There is no atheist council that decides what all atheists should do. \n\nThe decline of traditional organized religion has not translated into a comparable diffusion of rationalism, empiricism or even scientific literacy among the general population, on the contrary, pseudoscientific beliefs and general woo are at an all time high.\n\nSure, idk what this proves though. There is a general move away from religion but it is happening for a large variety of reasons. \n\nI would be prepared to trade organized religion for a world of empiricism and humanism, but I'm not going to bring down the Church just to see people turn to mysticism, spiritism, ancient aliens, whitewashed buddhism, \"alternative medicine\", astrology and the likes.\n\nIdk why you're presenting this like it's only 2 alternatives. So let me get this straight. You've seen people fall for conspiracy theories and so you've become a Christian? What?\n\nInstitutions like the Catholic Church and others while sometimes corrupt and inefficient can bring people together to do some good and increase social trust while even bridging the gap between Science and Religion, many scientific accomplishments have been achieved under the guidance of the Catholic Church after all.\n\nCertainly, and they can also cause atrocities. Many scientific achievements were stifled under the catholic church too don't forget. Not sure what point this proves. \n\nIndividualized mysticism or spiritism does none of that while leaving people vulnerable all kinds of dumb ideas about health and the very nature of the universe.\n\nHow does it not? It doesn't inherently push them to conspiracy as you seem to believe.\nAlso it strikes me as odd that you say \"well I want everyone to be analytical but given people aren't ill just not be either and turn to religion\"",
">\n\nThe \"Atheist Movement\" didn't fail completely because there never really was an \"Atheist Movement.\"\nThere were newsgroups and subreddits, sure, like alt.atheism and r/atheism. And in those places, most participants were \"agnostic atheists,\" meaning, basically, \"Christians, I'm not buying what you're selling. It sounds like nonsense. Get off my back about it.\"\nAnd that largely succeeded. American Christianity is much smaller and much quieter than it was thirty years ago, and Christians are more off-our-backs than ever before.\nI agree that our communities have largely collapsed and people are more isolated and alone and miserable than ever before. But there are a dozen reasons for that - smartphones being one, the media culture of fear another - and you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.",
">\n\n\nand you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.\n\nI think you can lay at least some of it at the feet of atheism, for the same reason Nietzsche pondered in Zarathustra when he say \"God is dead, and we have killed him.\" \nGod may not exist outside the minds of men, and yet if we measure a thing by the effects it has on the world, the concept of God within the minds of men is one of the most powerful forces on earth, slaying millions and subjugating peoples across the globe, while also providing billions with comfort and a sense of purpose and meaning. \nNietzsche's observation was that removing this concept from the minds of men, \"killing God,\" would have profound implications upon how society is structured and functions. It would either be replaced with something that met those same needs, or society would suffer from those needs being unmet. In his time, it was mostly the educated classes for whom God was dead, yet they played along as God justified their station in life.\nNow we mostly have killed God, and the consequences are evident. There is no longer a common, underlying shared belief among a majority of the masses. It did not matter whether it was true per se, but it provided stability and at least a modicum of mutual respect across political parties. Now that we don't even have that, there are less barriers to \"by any means necessary\" strategies, such as we saw on Jan 6.",
">\n\nFirstly, being an atheist isn't a movement, so your view is inaccurate and thus should already be changed.\nBut beyond that...\nThere are more atheist YoY every single year than the year prior by every research study that comes about, so it sounds like atheism is far from failing, and instead becoming quite successful as spreading into common belief (or lack thereof).",
">\n\n\nFirstly, being an atheist isn't a movement\n\nIt was ten to fifteen years ago. \nI personally was a part of at least two groups of hundreds of thousands people online highly engaged in the media battles of the time : Atheist Republic and Atheist United. The groups were constantly closed and closed again by sic Facebook and replenished in only a matter of days. You would see persons like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins all over medias on highly controversial topics, daring to say things that were intolerable on TV at the time when they were only common sense. The satanist church (which is an atheist advocacy group, not a real satanist organization) was constantly suing boards and states over interdictions of scientific material in schools. The pastafarian (joke) cult, that was also against biasing public debates in favor of Christianity over other religions and lack of any religion -one of the biggest coups was to allow non believers to have as much extra leaves as religious people had for religious purposes.\nAll of this just to say : there was one, and it was crazy and fun.",
">\n\n\nTL;DR: Atheism would be great if people were into science and philosophy\n\nAs a PhD candidate in philosophy, believe me when I say that atheists getting more into philosophy will not make them more palatable to you.",
">\n\nDon't you guys learn religion as part of your Philosophy. Eastern/Western Thought, Bushism, Abrahamic Religion, Descartes, Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche? Or am I mistaken?",
">\n\nYou don't need a movement to be atheist. I was brought up without a religion so it's normal to me. I don't see what all the fuss is about, it takes zero effort to not follow any religion if you never were immersed in one in the first place.\nIt's different if you're trying to escape a religion, but that's not all atheists. Perhaps the movement you're thinking about is for ex-religious types?",
">\n\nDoes, whether a belief is true, matter to you?",
">\n\nIt did once, but not anymore, I like to think of myself as a pragmatist. For example the very idea of free will is laughable to me from a scientific standpoint and yet I live my life under the assumption that I have agency and I'm sure most people do as well, it's just an healthier way to live your life and generally improves individual and societal outcomes.",
">\n\n\nIt did once, but not anymore, I like to think of myself as a pragmatist.\n\nSo why are you mad about conspiracy theorists or all the other groups you mentioned?\nYou also don't strike me as a believer if you're only doing it \"for the societal outcomes\".",
">\n\nI specified that I got closer to christian culture not necessairly christian beliefs, I dislike conspiracy theorists because they are wrong and an obvious threat to rule of law and prosperity, january the 6th rings any bells?",
">\n\nOP: I don't care about truth\nAlso OP: I dislike X group because they don't believe in truth",
">\n\nThere's a difference between abstract truths like whether God exists or the simulation hypothesis and whether the election was stolen",
">\n\nFirst, that's an abstract idea, not a truth. And sure, lies about recent history aside, you still show a disdain for other types of abstract ideas, like mysticism, aliens, and astrology. The inconsistency is why would these concepts gaining traction bother you, if you don't care about truth regarding these types of ideas (the type that doesn't have a concrete effect on your life either way)",
">\n\nI explained why I dislike the things you mentioned, they provide none of the benefits of organized religion while exposing people to cults, scams, pseudoscience, etc. This has a tangible negative effect on individuals and society.",
">\n\nExactly, basically you're saying that they're demonstrably false, that their truth value = false, and therefore, only the negative outcomes of their existence are to be considered.\nBut it's also just your opinion, you claim they provide none of the benefits of trad. religion. And yet, believers in these ideas would disagree. They would say these ideas give them the exact same feelings of comfort, community, and security. These are benefits. The only difference here is that you have a hidden premise, the implicit \"knowledge\" that these are nothing more than scams / pseudoscience, so you can dismiss them out of hand. And organized religion shares the exact same risks as these other systems, scams/cults/pseudoscience. \nI highly doubt you could demonstrate how these abstract concepts of supernatural mechanisms are any more tangibly negative or any less tangibly positive than organized religion. The only real difference between the categories is penetration, quantity not quality."
] |
>
IMO you're mixing two things : the utter explosion of conspiracy theories that is more of a consequence of the world wide web and diminished trust towards authority figures on one side, and the explosion of atheism in the united states in the other.
I'm from Europe where the percentage of atheists barely changed in the last two decades and if anything slightly decreased (the fall of communist countries being the main factor) and here we also witnessed this high rise of conspiracy theories of all kinds.
Same plant growing in completely opposite grounds. As I am an atheist, I also defend the right for anyone to believe, but the rise of conspiracy theories is not a crisis of faith as much as a crisis of trust, in the fact that our society is structured and coherent, in our gouvernances, and most of all in the future. | [
"To /u/GancioTheRanter, Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.\nIn our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest:\n\nInstead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest.\nSteelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words.\nAvoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a delta before proceeding.\nAsk questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong.\n\nPlease also take a moment to review our Rule B guidelines and really ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track. Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and understand why others think differently than you do.",
">\n\nWhat is the \"atheist movement\", can you explain that?\nAtheism is the lack of believe in all god concepts, atheist hold no responsibility to provide evidence of how anything came to be.",
">\n\nYeah pretty much this... atheism is not a \"movement\" . It is not like we are trying to recreate an atheist version of The Crusades and get rid of every religious person",
">\n\nThis isn't the gotcha you think it is lmao",
">\n\nWould you use \"we\" to refer to the people that dislike the same foods you dislike? If many people identify themselves with the label atheist then there's an atheist movement.",
">\n\nNo there isn't lmao. He used \"we\" to refer to atheists in general, of which he is also an atheist. If by movement you mean \"there's a lot of people becoming atheists\" then I agree.\nAll the dude was saying is that \"we atheists who only share a disbelief in God aren't trying to do anything else collectively like a crusade\" that doesn't imply group cohesiveness at all.",
">\n\n\nIt is cristal clear to me now that the Atheist concept of people freeing themselves from the shakles of dogmatic faith to embrace rationality, empiricism and secular philosophy is complete and utter nonsense.\n\nBe careful prescribing this view onto atheists in general. There is no atheist council that decides what all atheists should do. \n\nThe decline of traditional organized religion has not translated into a comparable diffusion of rationalism, empiricism or even scientific literacy among the general population, on the contrary, pseudoscientific beliefs and general woo are at an all time high.\n\nSure, idk what this proves though. There is a general move away from religion but it is happening for a large variety of reasons. \n\nI would be prepared to trade organized religion for a world of empiricism and humanism, but I'm not going to bring down the Church just to see people turn to mysticism, spiritism, ancient aliens, whitewashed buddhism, \"alternative medicine\", astrology and the likes.\n\nIdk why you're presenting this like it's only 2 alternatives. So let me get this straight. You've seen people fall for conspiracy theories and so you've become a Christian? What?\n\nInstitutions like the Catholic Church and others while sometimes corrupt and inefficient can bring people together to do some good and increase social trust while even bridging the gap between Science and Religion, many scientific accomplishments have been achieved under the guidance of the Catholic Church after all.\n\nCertainly, and they can also cause atrocities. Many scientific achievements were stifled under the catholic church too don't forget. Not sure what point this proves. \n\nIndividualized mysticism or spiritism does none of that while leaving people vulnerable all kinds of dumb ideas about health and the very nature of the universe.\n\nHow does it not? It doesn't inherently push them to conspiracy as you seem to believe.\nAlso it strikes me as odd that you say \"well I want everyone to be analytical but given people aren't ill just not be either and turn to religion\"",
">\n\nThe \"Atheist Movement\" didn't fail completely because there never really was an \"Atheist Movement.\"\nThere were newsgroups and subreddits, sure, like alt.atheism and r/atheism. And in those places, most participants were \"agnostic atheists,\" meaning, basically, \"Christians, I'm not buying what you're selling. It sounds like nonsense. Get off my back about it.\"\nAnd that largely succeeded. American Christianity is much smaller and much quieter than it was thirty years ago, and Christians are more off-our-backs than ever before.\nI agree that our communities have largely collapsed and people are more isolated and alone and miserable than ever before. But there are a dozen reasons for that - smartphones being one, the media culture of fear another - and you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.",
">\n\n\nand you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.\n\nI think you can lay at least some of it at the feet of atheism, for the same reason Nietzsche pondered in Zarathustra when he say \"God is dead, and we have killed him.\" \nGod may not exist outside the minds of men, and yet if we measure a thing by the effects it has on the world, the concept of God within the minds of men is one of the most powerful forces on earth, slaying millions and subjugating peoples across the globe, while also providing billions with comfort and a sense of purpose and meaning. \nNietzsche's observation was that removing this concept from the minds of men, \"killing God,\" would have profound implications upon how society is structured and functions. It would either be replaced with something that met those same needs, or society would suffer from those needs being unmet. In his time, it was mostly the educated classes for whom God was dead, yet they played along as God justified their station in life.\nNow we mostly have killed God, and the consequences are evident. There is no longer a common, underlying shared belief among a majority of the masses. It did not matter whether it was true per se, but it provided stability and at least a modicum of mutual respect across political parties. Now that we don't even have that, there are less barriers to \"by any means necessary\" strategies, such as we saw on Jan 6.",
">\n\nFirstly, being an atheist isn't a movement, so your view is inaccurate and thus should already be changed.\nBut beyond that...\nThere are more atheist YoY every single year than the year prior by every research study that comes about, so it sounds like atheism is far from failing, and instead becoming quite successful as spreading into common belief (or lack thereof).",
">\n\n\nFirstly, being an atheist isn't a movement\n\nIt was ten to fifteen years ago. \nI personally was a part of at least two groups of hundreds of thousands people online highly engaged in the media battles of the time : Atheist Republic and Atheist United. The groups were constantly closed and closed again by sic Facebook and replenished in only a matter of days. You would see persons like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins all over medias on highly controversial topics, daring to say things that were intolerable on TV at the time when they were only common sense. The satanist church (which is an atheist advocacy group, not a real satanist organization) was constantly suing boards and states over interdictions of scientific material in schools. The pastafarian (joke) cult, that was also against biasing public debates in favor of Christianity over other religions and lack of any religion -one of the biggest coups was to allow non believers to have as much extra leaves as religious people had for religious purposes.\nAll of this just to say : there was one, and it was crazy and fun.",
">\n\n\nTL;DR: Atheism would be great if people were into science and philosophy\n\nAs a PhD candidate in philosophy, believe me when I say that atheists getting more into philosophy will not make them more palatable to you.",
">\n\nDon't you guys learn religion as part of your Philosophy. Eastern/Western Thought, Bushism, Abrahamic Religion, Descartes, Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche? Or am I mistaken?",
">\n\nYou don't need a movement to be atheist. I was brought up without a religion so it's normal to me. I don't see what all the fuss is about, it takes zero effort to not follow any religion if you never were immersed in one in the first place.\nIt's different if you're trying to escape a religion, but that's not all atheists. Perhaps the movement you're thinking about is for ex-religious types?",
">\n\nDoes, whether a belief is true, matter to you?",
">\n\nIt did once, but not anymore, I like to think of myself as a pragmatist. For example the very idea of free will is laughable to me from a scientific standpoint and yet I live my life under the assumption that I have agency and I'm sure most people do as well, it's just an healthier way to live your life and generally improves individual and societal outcomes.",
">\n\n\nIt did once, but not anymore, I like to think of myself as a pragmatist.\n\nSo why are you mad about conspiracy theorists or all the other groups you mentioned?\nYou also don't strike me as a believer if you're only doing it \"for the societal outcomes\".",
">\n\nI specified that I got closer to christian culture not necessairly christian beliefs, I dislike conspiracy theorists because they are wrong and an obvious threat to rule of law and prosperity, january the 6th rings any bells?",
">\n\nOP: I don't care about truth\nAlso OP: I dislike X group because they don't believe in truth",
">\n\nThere's a difference between abstract truths like whether God exists or the simulation hypothesis and whether the election was stolen",
">\n\nFirst, that's an abstract idea, not a truth. And sure, lies about recent history aside, you still show a disdain for other types of abstract ideas, like mysticism, aliens, and astrology. The inconsistency is why would these concepts gaining traction bother you, if you don't care about truth regarding these types of ideas (the type that doesn't have a concrete effect on your life either way)",
">\n\nI explained why I dislike the things you mentioned, they provide none of the benefits of organized religion while exposing people to cults, scams, pseudoscience, etc. This has a tangible negative effect on individuals and society.",
">\n\nExactly, basically you're saying that they're demonstrably false, that their truth value = false, and therefore, only the negative outcomes of their existence are to be considered.\nBut it's also just your opinion, you claim they provide none of the benefits of trad. religion. And yet, believers in these ideas would disagree. They would say these ideas give them the exact same feelings of comfort, community, and security. These are benefits. The only difference here is that you have a hidden premise, the implicit \"knowledge\" that these are nothing more than scams / pseudoscience, so you can dismiss them out of hand. And organized religion shares the exact same risks as these other systems, scams/cults/pseudoscience. \nI highly doubt you could demonstrate how these abstract concepts of supernatural mechanisms are any more tangibly negative or any less tangibly positive than organized religion. The only real difference between the categories is penetration, quantity not quality.",
">\n\nWhat movement? Are you talking about like reddit atheists or people who clung to certain pop culture figures? All that was/is people moving away from growing up in mostly Christian households and being like yeah I'm not doing that shit anymore. It's a rejection of what they experienced. \nIs the \"atheist movement\" pushing anything in particular? I think this view is you sort of pushing this sort of culture war or war of ideas as if most people who don't believe in God care about what religious people do besides like imposing their views on others through laws. \nI find with these sort of views is an OP is trying to justify why their belief system and shift is valid and right, but really nobody cares. Good for you for finding that Christianity helps you. As someone who doesn't think about God or religion I couldn't care less. I don't think I've come across people with strong views on religion that haven't been subject to it growing up or have decided to make that their one internet talking point to rant about. \nI'm sure around a decade ago or more there was much more fanfare around atheism. Especially around the release of The God Delusion, but really that sort of smug we know better thinking died out. And really it seemed only confined to like 4 media personalities from what I can remember. Dawkins, Hitchens, Sam Harris and Bill Maher. \nThe whole sort of new atheism thing. But that was almost two decades ago now. And touches none of what you complain about."
] |
>
I may add that atheism is not a doctrine aiming to replace current beliefs by a mantle of science and nietzschean self improvement but a doctrine of nullification of the monopoly of religion over morality, which arguably succeeded in the united states anyways.
Edit : I should say militant atheism. | [
"To /u/GancioTheRanter, Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.\nIn our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest:\n\nInstead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest.\nSteelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words.\nAvoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a delta before proceeding.\nAsk questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong.\n\nPlease also take a moment to review our Rule B guidelines and really ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track. Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and understand why others think differently than you do.",
">\n\nWhat is the \"atheist movement\", can you explain that?\nAtheism is the lack of believe in all god concepts, atheist hold no responsibility to provide evidence of how anything came to be.",
">\n\nYeah pretty much this... atheism is not a \"movement\" . It is not like we are trying to recreate an atheist version of The Crusades and get rid of every religious person",
">\n\nThis isn't the gotcha you think it is lmao",
">\n\nWould you use \"we\" to refer to the people that dislike the same foods you dislike? If many people identify themselves with the label atheist then there's an atheist movement.",
">\n\nNo there isn't lmao. He used \"we\" to refer to atheists in general, of which he is also an atheist. If by movement you mean \"there's a lot of people becoming atheists\" then I agree.\nAll the dude was saying is that \"we atheists who only share a disbelief in God aren't trying to do anything else collectively like a crusade\" that doesn't imply group cohesiveness at all.",
">\n\n\nIt is cristal clear to me now that the Atheist concept of people freeing themselves from the shakles of dogmatic faith to embrace rationality, empiricism and secular philosophy is complete and utter nonsense.\n\nBe careful prescribing this view onto atheists in general. There is no atheist council that decides what all atheists should do. \n\nThe decline of traditional organized religion has not translated into a comparable diffusion of rationalism, empiricism or even scientific literacy among the general population, on the contrary, pseudoscientific beliefs and general woo are at an all time high.\n\nSure, idk what this proves though. There is a general move away from religion but it is happening for a large variety of reasons. \n\nI would be prepared to trade organized religion for a world of empiricism and humanism, but I'm not going to bring down the Church just to see people turn to mysticism, spiritism, ancient aliens, whitewashed buddhism, \"alternative medicine\", astrology and the likes.\n\nIdk why you're presenting this like it's only 2 alternatives. So let me get this straight. You've seen people fall for conspiracy theories and so you've become a Christian? What?\n\nInstitutions like the Catholic Church and others while sometimes corrupt and inefficient can bring people together to do some good and increase social trust while even bridging the gap between Science and Religion, many scientific accomplishments have been achieved under the guidance of the Catholic Church after all.\n\nCertainly, and they can also cause atrocities. Many scientific achievements were stifled under the catholic church too don't forget. Not sure what point this proves. \n\nIndividualized mysticism or spiritism does none of that while leaving people vulnerable all kinds of dumb ideas about health and the very nature of the universe.\n\nHow does it not? It doesn't inherently push them to conspiracy as you seem to believe.\nAlso it strikes me as odd that you say \"well I want everyone to be analytical but given people aren't ill just not be either and turn to religion\"",
">\n\nThe \"Atheist Movement\" didn't fail completely because there never really was an \"Atheist Movement.\"\nThere were newsgroups and subreddits, sure, like alt.atheism and r/atheism. And in those places, most participants were \"agnostic atheists,\" meaning, basically, \"Christians, I'm not buying what you're selling. It sounds like nonsense. Get off my back about it.\"\nAnd that largely succeeded. American Christianity is much smaller and much quieter than it was thirty years ago, and Christians are more off-our-backs than ever before.\nI agree that our communities have largely collapsed and people are more isolated and alone and miserable than ever before. But there are a dozen reasons for that - smartphones being one, the media culture of fear another - and you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.",
">\n\n\nand you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.\n\nI think you can lay at least some of it at the feet of atheism, for the same reason Nietzsche pondered in Zarathustra when he say \"God is dead, and we have killed him.\" \nGod may not exist outside the minds of men, and yet if we measure a thing by the effects it has on the world, the concept of God within the minds of men is one of the most powerful forces on earth, slaying millions and subjugating peoples across the globe, while also providing billions with comfort and a sense of purpose and meaning. \nNietzsche's observation was that removing this concept from the minds of men, \"killing God,\" would have profound implications upon how society is structured and functions. It would either be replaced with something that met those same needs, or society would suffer from those needs being unmet. In his time, it was mostly the educated classes for whom God was dead, yet they played along as God justified their station in life.\nNow we mostly have killed God, and the consequences are evident. There is no longer a common, underlying shared belief among a majority of the masses. It did not matter whether it was true per se, but it provided stability and at least a modicum of mutual respect across political parties. Now that we don't even have that, there are less barriers to \"by any means necessary\" strategies, such as we saw on Jan 6.",
">\n\nFirstly, being an atheist isn't a movement, so your view is inaccurate and thus should already be changed.\nBut beyond that...\nThere are more atheist YoY every single year than the year prior by every research study that comes about, so it sounds like atheism is far from failing, and instead becoming quite successful as spreading into common belief (or lack thereof).",
">\n\n\nFirstly, being an atheist isn't a movement\n\nIt was ten to fifteen years ago. \nI personally was a part of at least two groups of hundreds of thousands people online highly engaged in the media battles of the time : Atheist Republic and Atheist United. The groups were constantly closed and closed again by sic Facebook and replenished in only a matter of days. You would see persons like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins all over medias on highly controversial topics, daring to say things that were intolerable on TV at the time when they were only common sense. The satanist church (which is an atheist advocacy group, not a real satanist organization) was constantly suing boards and states over interdictions of scientific material in schools. The pastafarian (joke) cult, that was also against biasing public debates in favor of Christianity over other religions and lack of any religion -one of the biggest coups was to allow non believers to have as much extra leaves as religious people had for religious purposes.\nAll of this just to say : there was one, and it was crazy and fun.",
">\n\n\nTL;DR: Atheism would be great if people were into science and philosophy\n\nAs a PhD candidate in philosophy, believe me when I say that atheists getting more into philosophy will not make them more palatable to you.",
">\n\nDon't you guys learn religion as part of your Philosophy. Eastern/Western Thought, Bushism, Abrahamic Religion, Descartes, Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche? Or am I mistaken?",
">\n\nYou don't need a movement to be atheist. I was brought up without a religion so it's normal to me. I don't see what all the fuss is about, it takes zero effort to not follow any religion if you never were immersed in one in the first place.\nIt's different if you're trying to escape a religion, but that's not all atheists. Perhaps the movement you're thinking about is for ex-religious types?",
">\n\nDoes, whether a belief is true, matter to you?",
">\n\nIt did once, but not anymore, I like to think of myself as a pragmatist. For example the very idea of free will is laughable to me from a scientific standpoint and yet I live my life under the assumption that I have agency and I'm sure most people do as well, it's just an healthier way to live your life and generally improves individual and societal outcomes.",
">\n\n\nIt did once, but not anymore, I like to think of myself as a pragmatist.\n\nSo why are you mad about conspiracy theorists or all the other groups you mentioned?\nYou also don't strike me as a believer if you're only doing it \"for the societal outcomes\".",
">\n\nI specified that I got closer to christian culture not necessairly christian beliefs, I dislike conspiracy theorists because they are wrong and an obvious threat to rule of law and prosperity, january the 6th rings any bells?",
">\n\nOP: I don't care about truth\nAlso OP: I dislike X group because they don't believe in truth",
">\n\nThere's a difference between abstract truths like whether God exists or the simulation hypothesis and whether the election was stolen",
">\n\nFirst, that's an abstract idea, not a truth. And sure, lies about recent history aside, you still show a disdain for other types of abstract ideas, like mysticism, aliens, and astrology. The inconsistency is why would these concepts gaining traction bother you, if you don't care about truth regarding these types of ideas (the type that doesn't have a concrete effect on your life either way)",
">\n\nI explained why I dislike the things you mentioned, they provide none of the benefits of organized religion while exposing people to cults, scams, pseudoscience, etc. This has a tangible negative effect on individuals and society.",
">\n\nExactly, basically you're saying that they're demonstrably false, that their truth value = false, and therefore, only the negative outcomes of their existence are to be considered.\nBut it's also just your opinion, you claim they provide none of the benefits of trad. religion. And yet, believers in these ideas would disagree. They would say these ideas give them the exact same feelings of comfort, community, and security. These are benefits. The only difference here is that you have a hidden premise, the implicit \"knowledge\" that these are nothing more than scams / pseudoscience, so you can dismiss them out of hand. And organized religion shares the exact same risks as these other systems, scams/cults/pseudoscience. \nI highly doubt you could demonstrate how these abstract concepts of supernatural mechanisms are any more tangibly negative or any less tangibly positive than organized religion. The only real difference between the categories is penetration, quantity not quality.",
">\n\nWhat movement? Are you talking about like reddit atheists or people who clung to certain pop culture figures? All that was/is people moving away from growing up in mostly Christian households and being like yeah I'm not doing that shit anymore. It's a rejection of what they experienced. \nIs the \"atheist movement\" pushing anything in particular? I think this view is you sort of pushing this sort of culture war or war of ideas as if most people who don't believe in God care about what religious people do besides like imposing their views on others through laws. \nI find with these sort of views is an OP is trying to justify why their belief system and shift is valid and right, but really nobody cares. Good for you for finding that Christianity helps you. As someone who doesn't think about God or religion I couldn't care less. I don't think I've come across people with strong views on religion that haven't been subject to it growing up or have decided to make that their one internet talking point to rant about. \nI'm sure around a decade ago or more there was much more fanfare around atheism. Especially around the release of The God Delusion, but really that sort of smug we know better thinking died out. And really it seemed only confined to like 4 media personalities from what I can remember. Dawkins, Hitchens, Sam Harris and Bill Maher. \nThe whole sort of new atheism thing. But that was almost two decades ago now. And touches none of what you complain about.",
">\n\nIMO you're mixing two things : the utter explosion of conspiracy theories that is more of a consequence of the world wide web and diminished trust towards authority figures on one side, and the explosion of atheism in the united states in the other.\nI'm from Europe where the percentage of atheists barely changed in the last two decades and if anything slightly decreased (the fall of communist countries being the main factor) and here we also witnessed this high rise of conspiracy theories of all kinds. \nSame plant growing in completely opposite grounds. As I am an atheist, I also defend the right for anyone to believe, but the rise of conspiracy theories is not a crisis of faith as much as a crisis of trust, in the fact that our society is structured and coherent, in our gouvernances, and most of all in the future."
] |
>
Institutions like the Catholic Church and others while sometimes corrupt and inefficient can bring people together to do some good and increase social trust while even bridging the gap between Science and Religion, many scientific accomplishments have been achieved under the guidance of the Catholic Church after all.
There's nothing that binds atheists together, and they're still a minority in the country.
TL;DR: Atheism would be great if people were into science and philosophy as much as their Grandparents were into religion. That's not the case IMO
Not going to church doesn't mean you're into SciShow. Being an atheist doesn't mean you're smart or aren't shackled by some other dogma. Blaming ignorance, laziness and being selfish on atheism is a non-sequitur. You can make a much better case for social media, the opioid epidemic, widespread incarceration, and so on. They are much more important than a minority of non-believers. | [
"To /u/GancioTheRanter, Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.\nIn our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest:\n\nInstead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest.\nSteelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words.\nAvoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a delta before proceeding.\nAsk questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong.\n\nPlease also take a moment to review our Rule B guidelines and really ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track. Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and understand why others think differently than you do.",
">\n\nWhat is the \"atheist movement\", can you explain that?\nAtheism is the lack of believe in all god concepts, atheist hold no responsibility to provide evidence of how anything came to be.",
">\n\nYeah pretty much this... atheism is not a \"movement\" . It is not like we are trying to recreate an atheist version of The Crusades and get rid of every religious person",
">\n\nThis isn't the gotcha you think it is lmao",
">\n\nWould you use \"we\" to refer to the people that dislike the same foods you dislike? If many people identify themselves with the label atheist then there's an atheist movement.",
">\n\nNo there isn't lmao. He used \"we\" to refer to atheists in general, of which he is also an atheist. If by movement you mean \"there's a lot of people becoming atheists\" then I agree.\nAll the dude was saying is that \"we atheists who only share a disbelief in God aren't trying to do anything else collectively like a crusade\" that doesn't imply group cohesiveness at all.",
">\n\n\nIt is cristal clear to me now that the Atheist concept of people freeing themselves from the shakles of dogmatic faith to embrace rationality, empiricism and secular philosophy is complete and utter nonsense.\n\nBe careful prescribing this view onto atheists in general. There is no atheist council that decides what all atheists should do. \n\nThe decline of traditional organized religion has not translated into a comparable diffusion of rationalism, empiricism or even scientific literacy among the general population, on the contrary, pseudoscientific beliefs and general woo are at an all time high.\n\nSure, idk what this proves though. There is a general move away from religion but it is happening for a large variety of reasons. \n\nI would be prepared to trade organized religion for a world of empiricism and humanism, but I'm not going to bring down the Church just to see people turn to mysticism, spiritism, ancient aliens, whitewashed buddhism, \"alternative medicine\", astrology and the likes.\n\nIdk why you're presenting this like it's only 2 alternatives. So let me get this straight. You've seen people fall for conspiracy theories and so you've become a Christian? What?\n\nInstitutions like the Catholic Church and others while sometimes corrupt and inefficient can bring people together to do some good and increase social trust while even bridging the gap between Science and Religion, many scientific accomplishments have been achieved under the guidance of the Catholic Church after all.\n\nCertainly, and they can also cause atrocities. Many scientific achievements were stifled under the catholic church too don't forget. Not sure what point this proves. \n\nIndividualized mysticism or spiritism does none of that while leaving people vulnerable all kinds of dumb ideas about health and the very nature of the universe.\n\nHow does it not? It doesn't inherently push them to conspiracy as you seem to believe.\nAlso it strikes me as odd that you say \"well I want everyone to be analytical but given people aren't ill just not be either and turn to religion\"",
">\n\nThe \"Atheist Movement\" didn't fail completely because there never really was an \"Atheist Movement.\"\nThere were newsgroups and subreddits, sure, like alt.atheism and r/atheism. And in those places, most participants were \"agnostic atheists,\" meaning, basically, \"Christians, I'm not buying what you're selling. It sounds like nonsense. Get off my back about it.\"\nAnd that largely succeeded. American Christianity is much smaller and much quieter than it was thirty years ago, and Christians are more off-our-backs than ever before.\nI agree that our communities have largely collapsed and people are more isolated and alone and miserable than ever before. But there are a dozen reasons for that - smartphones being one, the media culture of fear another - and you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.",
">\n\n\nand you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.\n\nI think you can lay at least some of it at the feet of atheism, for the same reason Nietzsche pondered in Zarathustra when he say \"God is dead, and we have killed him.\" \nGod may not exist outside the minds of men, and yet if we measure a thing by the effects it has on the world, the concept of God within the minds of men is one of the most powerful forces on earth, slaying millions and subjugating peoples across the globe, while also providing billions with comfort and a sense of purpose and meaning. \nNietzsche's observation was that removing this concept from the minds of men, \"killing God,\" would have profound implications upon how society is structured and functions. It would either be replaced with something that met those same needs, or society would suffer from those needs being unmet. In his time, it was mostly the educated classes for whom God was dead, yet they played along as God justified their station in life.\nNow we mostly have killed God, and the consequences are evident. There is no longer a common, underlying shared belief among a majority of the masses. It did not matter whether it was true per se, but it provided stability and at least a modicum of mutual respect across political parties. Now that we don't even have that, there are less barriers to \"by any means necessary\" strategies, such as we saw on Jan 6.",
">\n\nFirstly, being an atheist isn't a movement, so your view is inaccurate and thus should already be changed.\nBut beyond that...\nThere are more atheist YoY every single year than the year prior by every research study that comes about, so it sounds like atheism is far from failing, and instead becoming quite successful as spreading into common belief (or lack thereof).",
">\n\n\nFirstly, being an atheist isn't a movement\n\nIt was ten to fifteen years ago. \nI personally was a part of at least two groups of hundreds of thousands people online highly engaged in the media battles of the time : Atheist Republic and Atheist United. The groups were constantly closed and closed again by sic Facebook and replenished in only a matter of days. You would see persons like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins all over medias on highly controversial topics, daring to say things that were intolerable on TV at the time when they were only common sense. The satanist church (which is an atheist advocacy group, not a real satanist organization) was constantly suing boards and states over interdictions of scientific material in schools. The pastafarian (joke) cult, that was also against biasing public debates in favor of Christianity over other religions and lack of any religion -one of the biggest coups was to allow non believers to have as much extra leaves as religious people had for religious purposes.\nAll of this just to say : there was one, and it was crazy and fun.",
">\n\n\nTL;DR: Atheism would be great if people were into science and philosophy\n\nAs a PhD candidate in philosophy, believe me when I say that atheists getting more into philosophy will not make them more palatable to you.",
">\n\nDon't you guys learn religion as part of your Philosophy. Eastern/Western Thought, Bushism, Abrahamic Religion, Descartes, Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche? Or am I mistaken?",
">\n\nYou don't need a movement to be atheist. I was brought up without a religion so it's normal to me. I don't see what all the fuss is about, it takes zero effort to not follow any religion if you never were immersed in one in the first place.\nIt's different if you're trying to escape a religion, but that's not all atheists. Perhaps the movement you're thinking about is for ex-religious types?",
">\n\nDoes, whether a belief is true, matter to you?",
">\n\nIt did once, but not anymore, I like to think of myself as a pragmatist. For example the very idea of free will is laughable to me from a scientific standpoint and yet I live my life under the assumption that I have agency and I'm sure most people do as well, it's just an healthier way to live your life and generally improves individual and societal outcomes.",
">\n\n\nIt did once, but not anymore, I like to think of myself as a pragmatist.\n\nSo why are you mad about conspiracy theorists or all the other groups you mentioned?\nYou also don't strike me as a believer if you're only doing it \"for the societal outcomes\".",
">\n\nI specified that I got closer to christian culture not necessairly christian beliefs, I dislike conspiracy theorists because they are wrong and an obvious threat to rule of law and prosperity, january the 6th rings any bells?",
">\n\nOP: I don't care about truth\nAlso OP: I dislike X group because they don't believe in truth",
">\n\nThere's a difference between abstract truths like whether God exists or the simulation hypothesis and whether the election was stolen",
">\n\nFirst, that's an abstract idea, not a truth. And sure, lies about recent history aside, you still show a disdain for other types of abstract ideas, like mysticism, aliens, and astrology. The inconsistency is why would these concepts gaining traction bother you, if you don't care about truth regarding these types of ideas (the type that doesn't have a concrete effect on your life either way)",
">\n\nI explained why I dislike the things you mentioned, they provide none of the benefits of organized religion while exposing people to cults, scams, pseudoscience, etc. This has a tangible negative effect on individuals and society.",
">\n\nExactly, basically you're saying that they're demonstrably false, that their truth value = false, and therefore, only the negative outcomes of their existence are to be considered.\nBut it's also just your opinion, you claim they provide none of the benefits of trad. religion. And yet, believers in these ideas would disagree. They would say these ideas give them the exact same feelings of comfort, community, and security. These are benefits. The only difference here is that you have a hidden premise, the implicit \"knowledge\" that these are nothing more than scams / pseudoscience, so you can dismiss them out of hand. And organized religion shares the exact same risks as these other systems, scams/cults/pseudoscience. \nI highly doubt you could demonstrate how these abstract concepts of supernatural mechanisms are any more tangibly negative or any less tangibly positive than organized religion. The only real difference between the categories is penetration, quantity not quality.",
">\n\nWhat movement? Are you talking about like reddit atheists or people who clung to certain pop culture figures? All that was/is people moving away from growing up in mostly Christian households and being like yeah I'm not doing that shit anymore. It's a rejection of what they experienced. \nIs the \"atheist movement\" pushing anything in particular? I think this view is you sort of pushing this sort of culture war or war of ideas as if most people who don't believe in God care about what religious people do besides like imposing their views on others through laws. \nI find with these sort of views is an OP is trying to justify why their belief system and shift is valid and right, but really nobody cares. Good for you for finding that Christianity helps you. As someone who doesn't think about God or religion I couldn't care less. I don't think I've come across people with strong views on religion that haven't been subject to it growing up or have decided to make that their one internet talking point to rant about. \nI'm sure around a decade ago or more there was much more fanfare around atheism. Especially around the release of The God Delusion, but really that sort of smug we know better thinking died out. And really it seemed only confined to like 4 media personalities from what I can remember. Dawkins, Hitchens, Sam Harris and Bill Maher. \nThe whole sort of new atheism thing. But that was almost two decades ago now. And touches none of what you complain about.",
">\n\nIMO you're mixing two things : the utter explosion of conspiracy theories that is more of a consequence of the world wide web and diminished trust towards authority figures on one side, and the explosion of atheism in the united states in the other.\nI'm from Europe where the percentage of atheists barely changed in the last two decades and if anything slightly decreased (the fall of communist countries being the main factor) and here we also witnessed this high rise of conspiracy theories of all kinds. \nSame plant growing in completely opposite grounds. As I am an atheist, I also defend the right for anyone to believe, but the rise of conspiracy theories is not a crisis of faith as much as a crisis of trust, in the fact that our society is structured and coherent, in our gouvernances, and most of all in the future.",
">\n\nI may add that atheism is not a doctrine aiming to replace current beliefs by a mantle of science and nietzschean self improvement but a doctrine of nullification of the monopoly of religion over morality, which arguably succeeded in the united states anyways.\nEdit : I should say militant atheism."
] |
>
I would say the problem rests in part in the fact that many atheists think all religions rest upon belief structures. And that because of this all religious traditions are irrational.
But they do not.
Judaism for example is an ethnoreligion. One is Jewish not on the basis of belief, but of birth. (Conversion is also possible, but is a vanishingly small number of Jews).
We Jews specifically talk about the "practice" of our religion, because ours is a religion defined not by beliefs, but by actions (and non-actions)
Atheism isn't failing because empiricism isn't an ideal worthy of pursuit. It is failing because it ultimately conflates fundamentalist Christianity with "religion" writ large. And because of that fact, they are often arguing at cross purposes with religious people.
Judaism is filled with practicing (in religious) Jews who are agnostic and/or atheists. Which means any atheist speaking to such people about the folly of religion definitionally have nothing to say. | [
"To /u/GancioTheRanter, Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.\nIn our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest:\n\nInstead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest.\nSteelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words.\nAvoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a delta before proceeding.\nAsk questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong.\n\nPlease also take a moment to review our Rule B guidelines and really ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track. Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and understand why others think differently than you do.",
">\n\nWhat is the \"atheist movement\", can you explain that?\nAtheism is the lack of believe in all god concepts, atheist hold no responsibility to provide evidence of how anything came to be.",
">\n\nYeah pretty much this... atheism is not a \"movement\" . It is not like we are trying to recreate an atheist version of The Crusades and get rid of every religious person",
">\n\nThis isn't the gotcha you think it is lmao",
">\n\nWould you use \"we\" to refer to the people that dislike the same foods you dislike? If many people identify themselves with the label atheist then there's an atheist movement.",
">\n\nNo there isn't lmao. He used \"we\" to refer to atheists in general, of which he is also an atheist. If by movement you mean \"there's a lot of people becoming atheists\" then I agree.\nAll the dude was saying is that \"we atheists who only share a disbelief in God aren't trying to do anything else collectively like a crusade\" that doesn't imply group cohesiveness at all.",
">\n\n\nIt is cristal clear to me now that the Atheist concept of people freeing themselves from the shakles of dogmatic faith to embrace rationality, empiricism and secular philosophy is complete and utter nonsense.\n\nBe careful prescribing this view onto atheists in general. There is no atheist council that decides what all atheists should do. \n\nThe decline of traditional organized religion has not translated into a comparable diffusion of rationalism, empiricism or even scientific literacy among the general population, on the contrary, pseudoscientific beliefs and general woo are at an all time high.\n\nSure, idk what this proves though. There is a general move away from religion but it is happening for a large variety of reasons. \n\nI would be prepared to trade organized religion for a world of empiricism and humanism, but I'm not going to bring down the Church just to see people turn to mysticism, spiritism, ancient aliens, whitewashed buddhism, \"alternative medicine\", astrology and the likes.\n\nIdk why you're presenting this like it's only 2 alternatives. So let me get this straight. You've seen people fall for conspiracy theories and so you've become a Christian? What?\n\nInstitutions like the Catholic Church and others while sometimes corrupt and inefficient can bring people together to do some good and increase social trust while even bridging the gap between Science and Religion, many scientific accomplishments have been achieved under the guidance of the Catholic Church after all.\n\nCertainly, and they can also cause atrocities. Many scientific achievements were stifled under the catholic church too don't forget. Not sure what point this proves. \n\nIndividualized mysticism or spiritism does none of that while leaving people vulnerable all kinds of dumb ideas about health and the very nature of the universe.\n\nHow does it not? It doesn't inherently push them to conspiracy as you seem to believe.\nAlso it strikes me as odd that you say \"well I want everyone to be analytical but given people aren't ill just not be either and turn to religion\"",
">\n\nThe \"Atheist Movement\" didn't fail completely because there never really was an \"Atheist Movement.\"\nThere were newsgroups and subreddits, sure, like alt.atheism and r/atheism. And in those places, most participants were \"agnostic atheists,\" meaning, basically, \"Christians, I'm not buying what you're selling. It sounds like nonsense. Get off my back about it.\"\nAnd that largely succeeded. American Christianity is much smaller and much quieter than it was thirty years ago, and Christians are more off-our-backs than ever before.\nI agree that our communities have largely collapsed and people are more isolated and alone and miserable than ever before. But there are a dozen reasons for that - smartphones being one, the media culture of fear another - and you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.",
">\n\n\nand you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.\n\nI think you can lay at least some of it at the feet of atheism, for the same reason Nietzsche pondered in Zarathustra when he say \"God is dead, and we have killed him.\" \nGod may not exist outside the minds of men, and yet if we measure a thing by the effects it has on the world, the concept of God within the minds of men is one of the most powerful forces on earth, slaying millions and subjugating peoples across the globe, while also providing billions with comfort and a sense of purpose and meaning. \nNietzsche's observation was that removing this concept from the minds of men, \"killing God,\" would have profound implications upon how society is structured and functions. It would either be replaced with something that met those same needs, or society would suffer from those needs being unmet. In his time, it was mostly the educated classes for whom God was dead, yet they played along as God justified their station in life.\nNow we mostly have killed God, and the consequences are evident. There is no longer a common, underlying shared belief among a majority of the masses. It did not matter whether it was true per se, but it provided stability and at least a modicum of mutual respect across political parties. Now that we don't even have that, there are less barriers to \"by any means necessary\" strategies, such as we saw on Jan 6.",
">\n\nFirstly, being an atheist isn't a movement, so your view is inaccurate and thus should already be changed.\nBut beyond that...\nThere are more atheist YoY every single year than the year prior by every research study that comes about, so it sounds like atheism is far from failing, and instead becoming quite successful as spreading into common belief (or lack thereof).",
">\n\n\nFirstly, being an atheist isn't a movement\n\nIt was ten to fifteen years ago. \nI personally was a part of at least two groups of hundreds of thousands people online highly engaged in the media battles of the time : Atheist Republic and Atheist United. The groups were constantly closed and closed again by sic Facebook and replenished in only a matter of days. You would see persons like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins all over medias on highly controversial topics, daring to say things that were intolerable on TV at the time when they were only common sense. The satanist church (which is an atheist advocacy group, not a real satanist organization) was constantly suing boards and states over interdictions of scientific material in schools. The pastafarian (joke) cult, that was also against biasing public debates in favor of Christianity over other religions and lack of any religion -one of the biggest coups was to allow non believers to have as much extra leaves as religious people had for religious purposes.\nAll of this just to say : there was one, and it was crazy and fun.",
">\n\n\nTL;DR: Atheism would be great if people were into science and philosophy\n\nAs a PhD candidate in philosophy, believe me when I say that atheists getting more into philosophy will not make them more palatable to you.",
">\n\nDon't you guys learn religion as part of your Philosophy. Eastern/Western Thought, Bushism, Abrahamic Religion, Descartes, Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche? Or am I mistaken?",
">\n\nYou don't need a movement to be atheist. I was brought up without a religion so it's normal to me. I don't see what all the fuss is about, it takes zero effort to not follow any religion if you never were immersed in one in the first place.\nIt's different if you're trying to escape a religion, but that's not all atheists. Perhaps the movement you're thinking about is for ex-religious types?",
">\n\nDoes, whether a belief is true, matter to you?",
">\n\nIt did once, but not anymore, I like to think of myself as a pragmatist. For example the very idea of free will is laughable to me from a scientific standpoint and yet I live my life under the assumption that I have agency and I'm sure most people do as well, it's just an healthier way to live your life and generally improves individual and societal outcomes.",
">\n\n\nIt did once, but not anymore, I like to think of myself as a pragmatist.\n\nSo why are you mad about conspiracy theorists or all the other groups you mentioned?\nYou also don't strike me as a believer if you're only doing it \"for the societal outcomes\".",
">\n\nI specified that I got closer to christian culture not necessairly christian beliefs, I dislike conspiracy theorists because they are wrong and an obvious threat to rule of law and prosperity, january the 6th rings any bells?",
">\n\nOP: I don't care about truth\nAlso OP: I dislike X group because they don't believe in truth",
">\n\nThere's a difference between abstract truths like whether God exists or the simulation hypothesis and whether the election was stolen",
">\n\nFirst, that's an abstract idea, not a truth. And sure, lies about recent history aside, you still show a disdain for other types of abstract ideas, like mysticism, aliens, and astrology. The inconsistency is why would these concepts gaining traction bother you, if you don't care about truth regarding these types of ideas (the type that doesn't have a concrete effect on your life either way)",
">\n\nI explained why I dislike the things you mentioned, they provide none of the benefits of organized religion while exposing people to cults, scams, pseudoscience, etc. This has a tangible negative effect on individuals and society.",
">\n\nExactly, basically you're saying that they're demonstrably false, that their truth value = false, and therefore, only the negative outcomes of their existence are to be considered.\nBut it's also just your opinion, you claim they provide none of the benefits of trad. religion. And yet, believers in these ideas would disagree. They would say these ideas give them the exact same feelings of comfort, community, and security. These are benefits. The only difference here is that you have a hidden premise, the implicit \"knowledge\" that these are nothing more than scams / pseudoscience, so you can dismiss them out of hand. And organized religion shares the exact same risks as these other systems, scams/cults/pseudoscience. \nI highly doubt you could demonstrate how these abstract concepts of supernatural mechanisms are any more tangibly negative or any less tangibly positive than organized religion. The only real difference between the categories is penetration, quantity not quality.",
">\n\nWhat movement? Are you talking about like reddit atheists or people who clung to certain pop culture figures? All that was/is people moving away from growing up in mostly Christian households and being like yeah I'm not doing that shit anymore. It's a rejection of what they experienced. \nIs the \"atheist movement\" pushing anything in particular? I think this view is you sort of pushing this sort of culture war or war of ideas as if most people who don't believe in God care about what religious people do besides like imposing their views on others through laws. \nI find with these sort of views is an OP is trying to justify why their belief system and shift is valid and right, but really nobody cares. Good for you for finding that Christianity helps you. As someone who doesn't think about God or religion I couldn't care less. I don't think I've come across people with strong views on religion that haven't been subject to it growing up or have decided to make that their one internet talking point to rant about. \nI'm sure around a decade ago or more there was much more fanfare around atheism. Especially around the release of The God Delusion, but really that sort of smug we know better thinking died out. And really it seemed only confined to like 4 media personalities from what I can remember. Dawkins, Hitchens, Sam Harris and Bill Maher. \nThe whole sort of new atheism thing. But that was almost two decades ago now. And touches none of what you complain about.",
">\n\nIMO you're mixing two things : the utter explosion of conspiracy theories that is more of a consequence of the world wide web and diminished trust towards authority figures on one side, and the explosion of atheism in the united states in the other.\nI'm from Europe where the percentage of atheists barely changed in the last two decades and if anything slightly decreased (the fall of communist countries being the main factor) and here we also witnessed this high rise of conspiracy theories of all kinds. \nSame plant growing in completely opposite grounds. As I am an atheist, I also defend the right for anyone to believe, but the rise of conspiracy theories is not a crisis of faith as much as a crisis of trust, in the fact that our society is structured and coherent, in our gouvernances, and most of all in the future.",
">\n\nI may add that atheism is not a doctrine aiming to replace current beliefs by a mantle of science and nietzschean self improvement but a doctrine of nullification of the monopoly of religion over morality, which arguably succeeded in the united states anyways.\nEdit : I should say militant atheism.",
">\n\n\nInstitutions like the Catholic Church and others while sometimes corrupt and inefficient can bring people together to do some good and increase social trust while even bridging the gap between Science and Religion, many scientific accomplishments have been achieved under the guidance of the Catholic Church after all.\n\nThere's nothing that binds atheists together, and they're still a minority in the country.\n\nTL;DR: Atheism would be great if people were into science and philosophy as much as their Grandparents were into religion. That's not the case IMO\n\nNot going to church doesn't mean you're into SciShow. Being an atheist doesn't mean you're smart or aren't shackled by some other dogma. Blaming ignorance, laziness and being selfish on atheism is a non-sequitur. You can make a much better case for social media, the opioid epidemic, widespread incarceration, and so on. They are much more important than a minority of non-believers."
] |
>
i told my 21y.o niece the other day that you can believe anything you want to believe. what you believe may be 100 percent true. however, if you have no evidence for what you believe, regardless of whether it is true, you are a moron. she is a self-declared witch.
i told my best friend that i have no interest at all in convincing anyone that god is not real but i do know that the god that the catholics believe in is fiction at least in part. and i also know that the mormon profits don't actually hear the word of god. in the unlikely case there was a creator, it is likely long since dead or departed and it needs nor deserves worship.
that being said, i was much happier and more charitable when i was a believer and because of that, i think that religions that promote community and charity are fine institutions. i wouldn't want anyone to depart from their religion if they find happiness and peace in that religion. | [
"To /u/GancioTheRanter, Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.\nIn our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest:\n\nInstead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest.\nSteelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words.\nAvoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a delta before proceeding.\nAsk questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong.\n\nPlease also take a moment to review our Rule B guidelines and really ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track. Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and understand why others think differently than you do.",
">\n\nWhat is the \"atheist movement\", can you explain that?\nAtheism is the lack of believe in all god concepts, atheist hold no responsibility to provide evidence of how anything came to be.",
">\n\nYeah pretty much this... atheism is not a \"movement\" . It is not like we are trying to recreate an atheist version of The Crusades and get rid of every religious person",
">\n\nThis isn't the gotcha you think it is lmao",
">\n\nWould you use \"we\" to refer to the people that dislike the same foods you dislike? If many people identify themselves with the label atheist then there's an atheist movement.",
">\n\nNo there isn't lmao. He used \"we\" to refer to atheists in general, of which he is also an atheist. If by movement you mean \"there's a lot of people becoming atheists\" then I agree.\nAll the dude was saying is that \"we atheists who only share a disbelief in God aren't trying to do anything else collectively like a crusade\" that doesn't imply group cohesiveness at all.",
">\n\n\nIt is cristal clear to me now that the Atheist concept of people freeing themselves from the shakles of dogmatic faith to embrace rationality, empiricism and secular philosophy is complete and utter nonsense.\n\nBe careful prescribing this view onto atheists in general. There is no atheist council that decides what all atheists should do. \n\nThe decline of traditional organized religion has not translated into a comparable diffusion of rationalism, empiricism or even scientific literacy among the general population, on the contrary, pseudoscientific beliefs and general woo are at an all time high.\n\nSure, idk what this proves though. There is a general move away from religion but it is happening for a large variety of reasons. \n\nI would be prepared to trade organized religion for a world of empiricism and humanism, but I'm not going to bring down the Church just to see people turn to mysticism, spiritism, ancient aliens, whitewashed buddhism, \"alternative medicine\", astrology and the likes.\n\nIdk why you're presenting this like it's only 2 alternatives. So let me get this straight. You've seen people fall for conspiracy theories and so you've become a Christian? What?\n\nInstitutions like the Catholic Church and others while sometimes corrupt and inefficient can bring people together to do some good and increase social trust while even bridging the gap between Science and Religion, many scientific accomplishments have been achieved under the guidance of the Catholic Church after all.\n\nCertainly, and they can also cause atrocities. Many scientific achievements were stifled under the catholic church too don't forget. Not sure what point this proves. \n\nIndividualized mysticism or spiritism does none of that while leaving people vulnerable all kinds of dumb ideas about health and the very nature of the universe.\n\nHow does it not? It doesn't inherently push them to conspiracy as you seem to believe.\nAlso it strikes me as odd that you say \"well I want everyone to be analytical but given people aren't ill just not be either and turn to religion\"",
">\n\nThe \"Atheist Movement\" didn't fail completely because there never really was an \"Atheist Movement.\"\nThere were newsgroups and subreddits, sure, like alt.atheism and r/atheism. And in those places, most participants were \"agnostic atheists,\" meaning, basically, \"Christians, I'm not buying what you're selling. It sounds like nonsense. Get off my back about it.\"\nAnd that largely succeeded. American Christianity is much smaller and much quieter than it was thirty years ago, and Christians are more off-our-backs than ever before.\nI agree that our communities have largely collapsed and people are more isolated and alone and miserable than ever before. But there are a dozen reasons for that - smartphones being one, the media culture of fear another - and you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.",
">\n\n\nand you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.\n\nI think you can lay at least some of it at the feet of atheism, for the same reason Nietzsche pondered in Zarathustra when he say \"God is dead, and we have killed him.\" \nGod may not exist outside the minds of men, and yet if we measure a thing by the effects it has on the world, the concept of God within the minds of men is one of the most powerful forces on earth, slaying millions and subjugating peoples across the globe, while also providing billions with comfort and a sense of purpose and meaning. \nNietzsche's observation was that removing this concept from the minds of men, \"killing God,\" would have profound implications upon how society is structured and functions. It would either be replaced with something that met those same needs, or society would suffer from those needs being unmet. In his time, it was mostly the educated classes for whom God was dead, yet they played along as God justified their station in life.\nNow we mostly have killed God, and the consequences are evident. There is no longer a common, underlying shared belief among a majority of the masses. It did not matter whether it was true per se, but it provided stability and at least a modicum of mutual respect across political parties. Now that we don't even have that, there are less barriers to \"by any means necessary\" strategies, such as we saw on Jan 6.",
">\n\nFirstly, being an atheist isn't a movement, so your view is inaccurate and thus should already be changed.\nBut beyond that...\nThere are more atheist YoY every single year than the year prior by every research study that comes about, so it sounds like atheism is far from failing, and instead becoming quite successful as spreading into common belief (or lack thereof).",
">\n\n\nFirstly, being an atheist isn't a movement\n\nIt was ten to fifteen years ago. \nI personally was a part of at least two groups of hundreds of thousands people online highly engaged in the media battles of the time : Atheist Republic and Atheist United. The groups were constantly closed and closed again by sic Facebook and replenished in only a matter of days. You would see persons like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins all over medias on highly controversial topics, daring to say things that were intolerable on TV at the time when they were only common sense. The satanist church (which is an atheist advocacy group, not a real satanist organization) was constantly suing boards and states over interdictions of scientific material in schools. The pastafarian (joke) cult, that was also against biasing public debates in favor of Christianity over other religions and lack of any religion -one of the biggest coups was to allow non believers to have as much extra leaves as religious people had for religious purposes.\nAll of this just to say : there was one, and it was crazy and fun.",
">\n\n\nTL;DR: Atheism would be great if people were into science and philosophy\n\nAs a PhD candidate in philosophy, believe me when I say that atheists getting more into philosophy will not make them more palatable to you.",
">\n\nDon't you guys learn religion as part of your Philosophy. Eastern/Western Thought, Bushism, Abrahamic Religion, Descartes, Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche? Or am I mistaken?",
">\n\nYou don't need a movement to be atheist. I was brought up without a religion so it's normal to me. I don't see what all the fuss is about, it takes zero effort to not follow any religion if you never were immersed in one in the first place.\nIt's different if you're trying to escape a religion, but that's not all atheists. Perhaps the movement you're thinking about is for ex-religious types?",
">\n\nDoes, whether a belief is true, matter to you?",
">\n\nIt did once, but not anymore, I like to think of myself as a pragmatist. For example the very idea of free will is laughable to me from a scientific standpoint and yet I live my life under the assumption that I have agency and I'm sure most people do as well, it's just an healthier way to live your life and generally improves individual and societal outcomes.",
">\n\n\nIt did once, but not anymore, I like to think of myself as a pragmatist.\n\nSo why are you mad about conspiracy theorists or all the other groups you mentioned?\nYou also don't strike me as a believer if you're only doing it \"for the societal outcomes\".",
">\n\nI specified that I got closer to christian culture not necessairly christian beliefs, I dislike conspiracy theorists because they are wrong and an obvious threat to rule of law and prosperity, january the 6th rings any bells?",
">\n\nOP: I don't care about truth\nAlso OP: I dislike X group because they don't believe in truth",
">\n\nThere's a difference between abstract truths like whether God exists or the simulation hypothesis and whether the election was stolen",
">\n\nFirst, that's an abstract idea, not a truth. And sure, lies about recent history aside, you still show a disdain for other types of abstract ideas, like mysticism, aliens, and astrology. The inconsistency is why would these concepts gaining traction bother you, if you don't care about truth regarding these types of ideas (the type that doesn't have a concrete effect on your life either way)",
">\n\nI explained why I dislike the things you mentioned, they provide none of the benefits of organized religion while exposing people to cults, scams, pseudoscience, etc. This has a tangible negative effect on individuals and society.",
">\n\nExactly, basically you're saying that they're demonstrably false, that their truth value = false, and therefore, only the negative outcomes of their existence are to be considered.\nBut it's also just your opinion, you claim they provide none of the benefits of trad. religion. And yet, believers in these ideas would disagree. They would say these ideas give them the exact same feelings of comfort, community, and security. These are benefits. The only difference here is that you have a hidden premise, the implicit \"knowledge\" that these are nothing more than scams / pseudoscience, so you can dismiss them out of hand. And organized religion shares the exact same risks as these other systems, scams/cults/pseudoscience. \nI highly doubt you could demonstrate how these abstract concepts of supernatural mechanisms are any more tangibly negative or any less tangibly positive than organized religion. The only real difference between the categories is penetration, quantity not quality.",
">\n\nWhat movement? Are you talking about like reddit atheists or people who clung to certain pop culture figures? All that was/is people moving away from growing up in mostly Christian households and being like yeah I'm not doing that shit anymore. It's a rejection of what they experienced. \nIs the \"atheist movement\" pushing anything in particular? I think this view is you sort of pushing this sort of culture war or war of ideas as if most people who don't believe in God care about what religious people do besides like imposing their views on others through laws. \nI find with these sort of views is an OP is trying to justify why their belief system and shift is valid and right, but really nobody cares. Good for you for finding that Christianity helps you. As someone who doesn't think about God or religion I couldn't care less. I don't think I've come across people with strong views on religion that haven't been subject to it growing up or have decided to make that their one internet talking point to rant about. \nI'm sure around a decade ago or more there was much more fanfare around atheism. Especially around the release of The God Delusion, but really that sort of smug we know better thinking died out. And really it seemed only confined to like 4 media personalities from what I can remember. Dawkins, Hitchens, Sam Harris and Bill Maher. \nThe whole sort of new atheism thing. But that was almost two decades ago now. And touches none of what you complain about.",
">\n\nIMO you're mixing two things : the utter explosion of conspiracy theories that is more of a consequence of the world wide web and diminished trust towards authority figures on one side, and the explosion of atheism in the united states in the other.\nI'm from Europe where the percentage of atheists barely changed in the last two decades and if anything slightly decreased (the fall of communist countries being the main factor) and here we also witnessed this high rise of conspiracy theories of all kinds. \nSame plant growing in completely opposite grounds. As I am an atheist, I also defend the right for anyone to believe, but the rise of conspiracy theories is not a crisis of faith as much as a crisis of trust, in the fact that our society is structured and coherent, in our gouvernances, and most of all in the future.",
">\n\nI may add that atheism is not a doctrine aiming to replace current beliefs by a mantle of science and nietzschean self improvement but a doctrine of nullification of the monopoly of religion over morality, which arguably succeeded in the united states anyways.\nEdit : I should say militant atheism.",
">\n\n\nInstitutions like the Catholic Church and others while sometimes corrupt and inefficient can bring people together to do some good and increase social trust while even bridging the gap between Science and Religion, many scientific accomplishments have been achieved under the guidance of the Catholic Church after all.\n\nThere's nothing that binds atheists together, and they're still a minority in the country.\n\nTL;DR: Atheism would be great if people were into science and philosophy as much as their Grandparents were into religion. That's not the case IMO\n\nNot going to church doesn't mean you're into SciShow. Being an atheist doesn't mean you're smart or aren't shackled by some other dogma. Blaming ignorance, laziness and being selfish on atheism is a non-sequitur. You can make a much better case for social media, the opioid epidemic, widespread incarceration, and so on. They are much more important than a minority of non-believers.",
">\n\nI would say the problem rests in part in the fact that many atheists think all religions rest upon belief structures. And that because of this all religious traditions are irrational. \nBut they do not. \nJudaism for example is an ethnoreligion. One is Jewish not on the basis of belief, but of birth. (Conversion is also possible, but is a vanishingly small number of Jews).\nWe Jews specifically talk about the \"practice\" of our religion, because ours is a religion defined not by beliefs, but by actions (and non-actions) \nAtheism isn't failing because empiricism isn't an ideal worthy of pursuit. It is failing because it ultimately conflates fundamentalist Christianity with \"religion\" writ large. And because of that fact, they are often arguing at cross purposes with religious people. \nJudaism is filled with practicing (in religious) Jews who are agnostic and/or atheists. Which means any atheist speaking to such people about the folly of religion definitionally have nothing to say."
] |
>
There is no such thing as the "Atheist movement". Atheism is simply a lack of belief in God. | [
"To /u/GancioTheRanter, Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.\nIn our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest:\n\nInstead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest.\nSteelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words.\nAvoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a delta before proceeding.\nAsk questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong.\n\nPlease also take a moment to review our Rule B guidelines and really ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track. Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and understand why others think differently than you do.",
">\n\nWhat is the \"atheist movement\", can you explain that?\nAtheism is the lack of believe in all god concepts, atheist hold no responsibility to provide evidence of how anything came to be.",
">\n\nYeah pretty much this... atheism is not a \"movement\" . It is not like we are trying to recreate an atheist version of The Crusades and get rid of every religious person",
">\n\nThis isn't the gotcha you think it is lmao",
">\n\nWould you use \"we\" to refer to the people that dislike the same foods you dislike? If many people identify themselves with the label atheist then there's an atheist movement.",
">\n\nNo there isn't lmao. He used \"we\" to refer to atheists in general, of which he is also an atheist. If by movement you mean \"there's a lot of people becoming atheists\" then I agree.\nAll the dude was saying is that \"we atheists who only share a disbelief in God aren't trying to do anything else collectively like a crusade\" that doesn't imply group cohesiveness at all.",
">\n\n\nIt is cristal clear to me now that the Atheist concept of people freeing themselves from the shakles of dogmatic faith to embrace rationality, empiricism and secular philosophy is complete and utter nonsense.\n\nBe careful prescribing this view onto atheists in general. There is no atheist council that decides what all atheists should do. \n\nThe decline of traditional organized religion has not translated into a comparable diffusion of rationalism, empiricism or even scientific literacy among the general population, on the contrary, pseudoscientific beliefs and general woo are at an all time high.\n\nSure, idk what this proves though. There is a general move away from religion but it is happening for a large variety of reasons. \n\nI would be prepared to trade organized religion for a world of empiricism and humanism, but I'm not going to bring down the Church just to see people turn to mysticism, spiritism, ancient aliens, whitewashed buddhism, \"alternative medicine\", astrology and the likes.\n\nIdk why you're presenting this like it's only 2 alternatives. So let me get this straight. You've seen people fall for conspiracy theories and so you've become a Christian? What?\n\nInstitutions like the Catholic Church and others while sometimes corrupt and inefficient can bring people together to do some good and increase social trust while even bridging the gap between Science and Religion, many scientific accomplishments have been achieved under the guidance of the Catholic Church after all.\n\nCertainly, and they can also cause atrocities. Many scientific achievements were stifled under the catholic church too don't forget. Not sure what point this proves. \n\nIndividualized mysticism or spiritism does none of that while leaving people vulnerable all kinds of dumb ideas about health and the very nature of the universe.\n\nHow does it not? It doesn't inherently push them to conspiracy as you seem to believe.\nAlso it strikes me as odd that you say \"well I want everyone to be analytical but given people aren't ill just not be either and turn to religion\"",
">\n\nThe \"Atheist Movement\" didn't fail completely because there never really was an \"Atheist Movement.\"\nThere were newsgroups and subreddits, sure, like alt.atheism and r/atheism. And in those places, most participants were \"agnostic atheists,\" meaning, basically, \"Christians, I'm not buying what you're selling. It sounds like nonsense. Get off my back about it.\"\nAnd that largely succeeded. American Christianity is much smaller and much quieter than it was thirty years ago, and Christians are more off-our-backs than ever before.\nI agree that our communities have largely collapsed and people are more isolated and alone and miserable than ever before. But there are a dozen reasons for that - smartphones being one, the media culture of fear another - and you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.",
">\n\n\nand you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.\n\nI think you can lay at least some of it at the feet of atheism, for the same reason Nietzsche pondered in Zarathustra when he say \"God is dead, and we have killed him.\" \nGod may not exist outside the minds of men, and yet if we measure a thing by the effects it has on the world, the concept of God within the minds of men is one of the most powerful forces on earth, slaying millions and subjugating peoples across the globe, while also providing billions with comfort and a sense of purpose and meaning. \nNietzsche's observation was that removing this concept from the minds of men, \"killing God,\" would have profound implications upon how society is structured and functions. It would either be replaced with something that met those same needs, or society would suffer from those needs being unmet. In his time, it was mostly the educated classes for whom God was dead, yet they played along as God justified their station in life.\nNow we mostly have killed God, and the consequences are evident. There is no longer a common, underlying shared belief among a majority of the masses. It did not matter whether it was true per se, but it provided stability and at least a modicum of mutual respect across political parties. Now that we don't even have that, there are less barriers to \"by any means necessary\" strategies, such as we saw on Jan 6.",
">\n\nFirstly, being an atheist isn't a movement, so your view is inaccurate and thus should already be changed.\nBut beyond that...\nThere are more atheist YoY every single year than the year prior by every research study that comes about, so it sounds like atheism is far from failing, and instead becoming quite successful as spreading into common belief (or lack thereof).",
">\n\n\nFirstly, being an atheist isn't a movement\n\nIt was ten to fifteen years ago. \nI personally was a part of at least two groups of hundreds of thousands people online highly engaged in the media battles of the time : Atheist Republic and Atheist United. The groups were constantly closed and closed again by sic Facebook and replenished in only a matter of days. You would see persons like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins all over medias on highly controversial topics, daring to say things that were intolerable on TV at the time when they were only common sense. The satanist church (which is an atheist advocacy group, not a real satanist organization) was constantly suing boards and states over interdictions of scientific material in schools. The pastafarian (joke) cult, that was also against biasing public debates in favor of Christianity over other religions and lack of any religion -one of the biggest coups was to allow non believers to have as much extra leaves as religious people had for religious purposes.\nAll of this just to say : there was one, and it was crazy and fun.",
">\n\n\nTL;DR: Atheism would be great if people were into science and philosophy\n\nAs a PhD candidate in philosophy, believe me when I say that atheists getting more into philosophy will not make them more palatable to you.",
">\n\nDon't you guys learn religion as part of your Philosophy. Eastern/Western Thought, Bushism, Abrahamic Religion, Descartes, Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche? Or am I mistaken?",
">\n\nYou don't need a movement to be atheist. I was brought up without a religion so it's normal to me. I don't see what all the fuss is about, it takes zero effort to not follow any religion if you never were immersed in one in the first place.\nIt's different if you're trying to escape a religion, but that's not all atheists. Perhaps the movement you're thinking about is for ex-religious types?",
">\n\nDoes, whether a belief is true, matter to you?",
">\n\nIt did once, but not anymore, I like to think of myself as a pragmatist. For example the very idea of free will is laughable to me from a scientific standpoint and yet I live my life under the assumption that I have agency and I'm sure most people do as well, it's just an healthier way to live your life and generally improves individual and societal outcomes.",
">\n\n\nIt did once, but not anymore, I like to think of myself as a pragmatist.\n\nSo why are you mad about conspiracy theorists or all the other groups you mentioned?\nYou also don't strike me as a believer if you're only doing it \"for the societal outcomes\".",
">\n\nI specified that I got closer to christian culture not necessairly christian beliefs, I dislike conspiracy theorists because they are wrong and an obvious threat to rule of law and prosperity, january the 6th rings any bells?",
">\n\nOP: I don't care about truth\nAlso OP: I dislike X group because they don't believe in truth",
">\n\nThere's a difference between abstract truths like whether God exists or the simulation hypothesis and whether the election was stolen",
">\n\nFirst, that's an abstract idea, not a truth. And sure, lies about recent history aside, you still show a disdain for other types of abstract ideas, like mysticism, aliens, and astrology. The inconsistency is why would these concepts gaining traction bother you, if you don't care about truth regarding these types of ideas (the type that doesn't have a concrete effect on your life either way)",
">\n\nI explained why I dislike the things you mentioned, they provide none of the benefits of organized religion while exposing people to cults, scams, pseudoscience, etc. This has a tangible negative effect on individuals and society.",
">\n\nExactly, basically you're saying that they're demonstrably false, that their truth value = false, and therefore, only the negative outcomes of their existence are to be considered.\nBut it's also just your opinion, you claim they provide none of the benefits of trad. religion. And yet, believers in these ideas would disagree. They would say these ideas give them the exact same feelings of comfort, community, and security. These are benefits. The only difference here is that you have a hidden premise, the implicit \"knowledge\" that these are nothing more than scams / pseudoscience, so you can dismiss them out of hand. And organized religion shares the exact same risks as these other systems, scams/cults/pseudoscience. \nI highly doubt you could demonstrate how these abstract concepts of supernatural mechanisms are any more tangibly negative or any less tangibly positive than organized religion. The only real difference between the categories is penetration, quantity not quality.",
">\n\nWhat movement? Are you talking about like reddit atheists or people who clung to certain pop culture figures? All that was/is people moving away from growing up in mostly Christian households and being like yeah I'm not doing that shit anymore. It's a rejection of what they experienced. \nIs the \"atheist movement\" pushing anything in particular? I think this view is you sort of pushing this sort of culture war or war of ideas as if most people who don't believe in God care about what religious people do besides like imposing their views on others through laws. \nI find with these sort of views is an OP is trying to justify why their belief system and shift is valid and right, but really nobody cares. Good for you for finding that Christianity helps you. As someone who doesn't think about God or religion I couldn't care less. I don't think I've come across people with strong views on religion that haven't been subject to it growing up or have decided to make that their one internet talking point to rant about. \nI'm sure around a decade ago or more there was much more fanfare around atheism. Especially around the release of The God Delusion, but really that sort of smug we know better thinking died out. And really it seemed only confined to like 4 media personalities from what I can remember. Dawkins, Hitchens, Sam Harris and Bill Maher. \nThe whole sort of new atheism thing. But that was almost two decades ago now. And touches none of what you complain about.",
">\n\nIMO you're mixing two things : the utter explosion of conspiracy theories that is more of a consequence of the world wide web and diminished trust towards authority figures on one side, and the explosion of atheism in the united states in the other.\nI'm from Europe where the percentage of atheists barely changed in the last two decades and if anything slightly decreased (the fall of communist countries being the main factor) and here we also witnessed this high rise of conspiracy theories of all kinds. \nSame plant growing in completely opposite grounds. As I am an atheist, I also defend the right for anyone to believe, but the rise of conspiracy theories is not a crisis of faith as much as a crisis of trust, in the fact that our society is structured and coherent, in our gouvernances, and most of all in the future.",
">\n\nI may add that atheism is not a doctrine aiming to replace current beliefs by a mantle of science and nietzschean self improvement but a doctrine of nullification of the monopoly of religion over morality, which arguably succeeded in the united states anyways.\nEdit : I should say militant atheism.",
">\n\n\nInstitutions like the Catholic Church and others while sometimes corrupt and inefficient can bring people together to do some good and increase social trust while even bridging the gap between Science and Religion, many scientific accomplishments have been achieved under the guidance of the Catholic Church after all.\n\nThere's nothing that binds atheists together, and they're still a minority in the country.\n\nTL;DR: Atheism would be great if people were into science and philosophy as much as their Grandparents were into religion. That's not the case IMO\n\nNot going to church doesn't mean you're into SciShow. Being an atheist doesn't mean you're smart or aren't shackled by some other dogma. Blaming ignorance, laziness and being selfish on atheism is a non-sequitur. You can make a much better case for social media, the opioid epidemic, widespread incarceration, and so on. They are much more important than a minority of non-believers.",
">\n\nI would say the problem rests in part in the fact that many atheists think all religions rest upon belief structures. And that because of this all religious traditions are irrational. \nBut they do not. \nJudaism for example is an ethnoreligion. One is Jewish not on the basis of belief, but of birth. (Conversion is also possible, but is a vanishingly small number of Jews).\nWe Jews specifically talk about the \"practice\" of our religion, because ours is a religion defined not by beliefs, but by actions (and non-actions) \nAtheism isn't failing because empiricism isn't an ideal worthy of pursuit. It is failing because it ultimately conflates fundamentalist Christianity with \"religion\" writ large. And because of that fact, they are often arguing at cross purposes with religious people. \nJudaism is filled with practicing (in religious) Jews who are agnostic and/or atheists. Which means any atheist speaking to such people about the folly of religion definitionally have nothing to say.",
">\n\ni told my 21y.o niece the other day that you can believe anything you want to believe. what you believe may be 100 percent true. however, if you have no evidence for what you believe, regardless of whether it is true, you are a moron. she is a self-declared witch.\ni told my best friend that i have no interest at all in convincing anyone that god is not real but i do know that the god that the catholics believe in is fiction at least in part. and i also know that the mormon profits don't actually hear the word of god. in the unlikely case there was a creator, it is likely long since dead or departed and it needs nor deserves worship.\nthat being said, i was much happier and more charitable when i was a believer and because of that, i think that religions that promote community and charity are fine institutions. i wouldn't want anyone to depart from their religion if they find happiness and peace in that religion."
] |
>
So you think that a person that doesn't believe in God but believes in spirits is an atheist? | [
"To /u/GancioTheRanter, Your post is under consideration for removal for violating Rule B.\nIn our experience, the best conversations genuinely consider the other person’s perspective. Here are some techniques for keeping yourself honest:\n\nInstead of only looking for flaws in a comment, be sure to engage with the commenters’ strongest arguments — not just their weakest.\nSteelman rather than strawman. When summarizing someone’s points, look for the most reasonable interpretation of their words.\nAvoid moving the goalposts. Reread the claims in your OP or first comments and if you need to change to a new set of claims to continue arguing for your position, you might want to consider acknowledging the change in view with a delta before proceeding.\nAsk questions and really try to understand the other side, rather than trying to prove why they are wrong.\n\nPlease also take a moment to review our Rule B guidelines and really ask yourself - am I exhibiting any of these behaviors? If so, see what you can do to get the discussion back on track. Remember, the goal of CMV is to try and understand why others think differently than you do.",
">\n\nWhat is the \"atheist movement\", can you explain that?\nAtheism is the lack of believe in all god concepts, atheist hold no responsibility to provide evidence of how anything came to be.",
">\n\nYeah pretty much this... atheism is not a \"movement\" . It is not like we are trying to recreate an atheist version of The Crusades and get rid of every religious person",
">\n\nThis isn't the gotcha you think it is lmao",
">\n\nWould you use \"we\" to refer to the people that dislike the same foods you dislike? If many people identify themselves with the label atheist then there's an atheist movement.",
">\n\nNo there isn't lmao. He used \"we\" to refer to atheists in general, of which he is also an atheist. If by movement you mean \"there's a lot of people becoming atheists\" then I agree.\nAll the dude was saying is that \"we atheists who only share a disbelief in God aren't trying to do anything else collectively like a crusade\" that doesn't imply group cohesiveness at all.",
">\n\n\nIt is cristal clear to me now that the Atheist concept of people freeing themselves from the shakles of dogmatic faith to embrace rationality, empiricism and secular philosophy is complete and utter nonsense.\n\nBe careful prescribing this view onto atheists in general. There is no atheist council that decides what all atheists should do. \n\nThe decline of traditional organized religion has not translated into a comparable diffusion of rationalism, empiricism or even scientific literacy among the general population, on the contrary, pseudoscientific beliefs and general woo are at an all time high.\n\nSure, idk what this proves though. There is a general move away from religion but it is happening for a large variety of reasons. \n\nI would be prepared to trade organized religion for a world of empiricism and humanism, but I'm not going to bring down the Church just to see people turn to mysticism, spiritism, ancient aliens, whitewashed buddhism, \"alternative medicine\", astrology and the likes.\n\nIdk why you're presenting this like it's only 2 alternatives. So let me get this straight. You've seen people fall for conspiracy theories and so you've become a Christian? What?\n\nInstitutions like the Catholic Church and others while sometimes corrupt and inefficient can bring people together to do some good and increase social trust while even bridging the gap between Science and Religion, many scientific accomplishments have been achieved under the guidance of the Catholic Church after all.\n\nCertainly, and they can also cause atrocities. Many scientific achievements were stifled under the catholic church too don't forget. Not sure what point this proves. \n\nIndividualized mysticism or spiritism does none of that while leaving people vulnerable all kinds of dumb ideas about health and the very nature of the universe.\n\nHow does it not? It doesn't inherently push them to conspiracy as you seem to believe.\nAlso it strikes me as odd that you say \"well I want everyone to be analytical but given people aren't ill just not be either and turn to religion\"",
">\n\nThe \"Atheist Movement\" didn't fail completely because there never really was an \"Atheist Movement.\"\nThere were newsgroups and subreddits, sure, like alt.atheism and r/atheism. And in those places, most participants were \"agnostic atheists,\" meaning, basically, \"Christians, I'm not buying what you're selling. It sounds like nonsense. Get off my back about it.\"\nAnd that largely succeeded. American Christianity is much smaller and much quieter than it was thirty years ago, and Christians are more off-our-backs than ever before.\nI agree that our communities have largely collapsed and people are more isolated and alone and miserable than ever before. But there are a dozen reasons for that - smartphones being one, the media culture of fear another - and you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.",
">\n\n\nand you can't lay it all at the feet of atheism. If any of it, at all.\n\nI think you can lay at least some of it at the feet of atheism, for the same reason Nietzsche pondered in Zarathustra when he say \"God is dead, and we have killed him.\" \nGod may not exist outside the minds of men, and yet if we measure a thing by the effects it has on the world, the concept of God within the minds of men is one of the most powerful forces on earth, slaying millions and subjugating peoples across the globe, while also providing billions with comfort and a sense of purpose and meaning. \nNietzsche's observation was that removing this concept from the minds of men, \"killing God,\" would have profound implications upon how society is structured and functions. It would either be replaced with something that met those same needs, or society would suffer from those needs being unmet. In his time, it was mostly the educated classes for whom God was dead, yet they played along as God justified their station in life.\nNow we mostly have killed God, and the consequences are evident. There is no longer a common, underlying shared belief among a majority of the masses. It did not matter whether it was true per se, but it provided stability and at least a modicum of mutual respect across political parties. Now that we don't even have that, there are less barriers to \"by any means necessary\" strategies, such as we saw on Jan 6.",
">\n\nFirstly, being an atheist isn't a movement, so your view is inaccurate and thus should already be changed.\nBut beyond that...\nThere are more atheist YoY every single year than the year prior by every research study that comes about, so it sounds like atheism is far from failing, and instead becoming quite successful as spreading into common belief (or lack thereof).",
">\n\n\nFirstly, being an atheist isn't a movement\n\nIt was ten to fifteen years ago. \nI personally was a part of at least two groups of hundreds of thousands people online highly engaged in the media battles of the time : Atheist Republic and Atheist United. The groups were constantly closed and closed again by sic Facebook and replenished in only a matter of days. You would see persons like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins all over medias on highly controversial topics, daring to say things that were intolerable on TV at the time when they were only common sense. The satanist church (which is an atheist advocacy group, not a real satanist organization) was constantly suing boards and states over interdictions of scientific material in schools. The pastafarian (joke) cult, that was also against biasing public debates in favor of Christianity over other religions and lack of any religion -one of the biggest coups was to allow non believers to have as much extra leaves as religious people had for religious purposes.\nAll of this just to say : there was one, and it was crazy and fun.",
">\n\n\nTL;DR: Atheism would be great if people were into science and philosophy\n\nAs a PhD candidate in philosophy, believe me when I say that atheists getting more into philosophy will not make them more palatable to you.",
">\n\nDon't you guys learn religion as part of your Philosophy. Eastern/Western Thought, Bushism, Abrahamic Religion, Descartes, Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche? Or am I mistaken?",
">\n\nYou don't need a movement to be atheist. I was brought up without a religion so it's normal to me. I don't see what all the fuss is about, it takes zero effort to not follow any religion if you never were immersed in one in the first place.\nIt's different if you're trying to escape a religion, but that's not all atheists. Perhaps the movement you're thinking about is for ex-religious types?",
">\n\nDoes, whether a belief is true, matter to you?",
">\n\nIt did once, but not anymore, I like to think of myself as a pragmatist. For example the very idea of free will is laughable to me from a scientific standpoint and yet I live my life under the assumption that I have agency and I'm sure most people do as well, it's just an healthier way to live your life and generally improves individual and societal outcomes.",
">\n\n\nIt did once, but not anymore, I like to think of myself as a pragmatist.\n\nSo why are you mad about conspiracy theorists or all the other groups you mentioned?\nYou also don't strike me as a believer if you're only doing it \"for the societal outcomes\".",
">\n\nI specified that I got closer to christian culture not necessairly christian beliefs, I dislike conspiracy theorists because they are wrong and an obvious threat to rule of law and prosperity, january the 6th rings any bells?",
">\n\nOP: I don't care about truth\nAlso OP: I dislike X group because they don't believe in truth",
">\n\nThere's a difference between abstract truths like whether God exists or the simulation hypothesis and whether the election was stolen",
">\n\nFirst, that's an abstract idea, not a truth. And sure, lies about recent history aside, you still show a disdain for other types of abstract ideas, like mysticism, aliens, and astrology. The inconsistency is why would these concepts gaining traction bother you, if you don't care about truth regarding these types of ideas (the type that doesn't have a concrete effect on your life either way)",
">\n\nI explained why I dislike the things you mentioned, they provide none of the benefits of organized religion while exposing people to cults, scams, pseudoscience, etc. This has a tangible negative effect on individuals and society.",
">\n\nExactly, basically you're saying that they're demonstrably false, that their truth value = false, and therefore, only the negative outcomes of their existence are to be considered.\nBut it's also just your opinion, you claim they provide none of the benefits of trad. religion. And yet, believers in these ideas would disagree. They would say these ideas give them the exact same feelings of comfort, community, and security. These are benefits. The only difference here is that you have a hidden premise, the implicit \"knowledge\" that these are nothing more than scams / pseudoscience, so you can dismiss them out of hand. And organized religion shares the exact same risks as these other systems, scams/cults/pseudoscience. \nI highly doubt you could demonstrate how these abstract concepts of supernatural mechanisms are any more tangibly negative or any less tangibly positive than organized religion. The only real difference between the categories is penetration, quantity not quality.",
">\n\nWhat movement? Are you talking about like reddit atheists or people who clung to certain pop culture figures? All that was/is people moving away from growing up in mostly Christian households and being like yeah I'm not doing that shit anymore. It's a rejection of what they experienced. \nIs the \"atheist movement\" pushing anything in particular? I think this view is you sort of pushing this sort of culture war or war of ideas as if most people who don't believe in God care about what religious people do besides like imposing their views on others through laws. \nI find with these sort of views is an OP is trying to justify why their belief system and shift is valid and right, but really nobody cares. Good for you for finding that Christianity helps you. As someone who doesn't think about God or religion I couldn't care less. I don't think I've come across people with strong views on religion that haven't been subject to it growing up or have decided to make that their one internet talking point to rant about. \nI'm sure around a decade ago or more there was much more fanfare around atheism. Especially around the release of The God Delusion, but really that sort of smug we know better thinking died out. And really it seemed only confined to like 4 media personalities from what I can remember. Dawkins, Hitchens, Sam Harris and Bill Maher. \nThe whole sort of new atheism thing. But that was almost two decades ago now. And touches none of what you complain about.",
">\n\nIMO you're mixing two things : the utter explosion of conspiracy theories that is more of a consequence of the world wide web and diminished trust towards authority figures on one side, and the explosion of atheism in the united states in the other.\nI'm from Europe where the percentage of atheists barely changed in the last two decades and if anything slightly decreased (the fall of communist countries being the main factor) and here we also witnessed this high rise of conspiracy theories of all kinds. \nSame plant growing in completely opposite grounds. As I am an atheist, I also defend the right for anyone to believe, but the rise of conspiracy theories is not a crisis of faith as much as a crisis of trust, in the fact that our society is structured and coherent, in our gouvernances, and most of all in the future.",
">\n\nI may add that atheism is not a doctrine aiming to replace current beliefs by a mantle of science and nietzschean self improvement but a doctrine of nullification of the monopoly of religion over morality, which arguably succeeded in the united states anyways.\nEdit : I should say militant atheism.",
">\n\n\nInstitutions like the Catholic Church and others while sometimes corrupt and inefficient can bring people together to do some good and increase social trust while even bridging the gap between Science and Religion, many scientific accomplishments have been achieved under the guidance of the Catholic Church after all.\n\nThere's nothing that binds atheists together, and they're still a minority in the country.\n\nTL;DR: Atheism would be great if people were into science and philosophy as much as their Grandparents were into religion. That's not the case IMO\n\nNot going to church doesn't mean you're into SciShow. Being an atheist doesn't mean you're smart or aren't shackled by some other dogma. Blaming ignorance, laziness and being selfish on atheism is a non-sequitur. You can make a much better case for social media, the opioid epidemic, widespread incarceration, and so on. They are much more important than a minority of non-believers.",
">\n\nI would say the problem rests in part in the fact that many atheists think all religions rest upon belief structures. And that because of this all religious traditions are irrational. \nBut they do not. \nJudaism for example is an ethnoreligion. One is Jewish not on the basis of belief, but of birth. (Conversion is also possible, but is a vanishingly small number of Jews).\nWe Jews specifically talk about the \"practice\" of our religion, because ours is a religion defined not by beliefs, but by actions (and non-actions) \nAtheism isn't failing because empiricism isn't an ideal worthy of pursuit. It is failing because it ultimately conflates fundamentalist Christianity with \"religion\" writ large. And because of that fact, they are often arguing at cross purposes with religious people. \nJudaism is filled with practicing (in religious) Jews who are agnostic and/or atheists. Which means any atheist speaking to such people about the folly of religion definitionally have nothing to say.",
">\n\ni told my 21y.o niece the other day that you can believe anything you want to believe. what you believe may be 100 percent true. however, if you have no evidence for what you believe, regardless of whether it is true, you are a moron. she is a self-declared witch.\ni told my best friend that i have no interest at all in convincing anyone that god is not real but i do know that the god that the catholics believe in is fiction at least in part. and i also know that the mormon profits don't actually hear the word of god. in the unlikely case there was a creator, it is likely long since dead or departed and it needs nor deserves worship.\nthat being said, i was much happier and more charitable when i was a believer and because of that, i think that religions that promote community and charity are fine institutions. i wouldn't want anyone to depart from their religion if they find happiness and peace in that religion.",
">\n\nThere is no such thing as the \"Atheist movement\". Atheism is simply a lack of belief in God."
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.