Pinned post

Using this as a backup account, you might see me posting a lot since I"m migrating over my toots.

A crucial mistake reactionaries make is mistaking the soullessness of modern life as a product of the domestic sphere being invaded by public sphere, when the reality is that it's due to common life being supplanted by privatizing forces.

I think a big stumbling block for complementarianism is that it neglects the dynamics between men and women outside of the home. The discussions about gender roles and how the sexes relate is mostly either couched within the context of marriage or family.

The tension between the sexes extends to the workplace, to the streets, etc. Society cannot be reduced to a sum of isolated households, and when we consider how men and women should relate to each other, we need to take into account they do so in a public arena.

When we shift to this public perspective, we begin to get a better understanding of how the issues women face are not just due to bad individuals, but also systematic. And as a result, it forces us to re-examine how we approach the issue of manhood/womanhood.

One of the most underrated effects of societal double-standards is how it ends up undermining moral standards and paves the way for a hedonistic "you do you" mentality in our culture.

We've gone from weaponizing the drug war as a tool of racial suppression to spreading the myth that various recreational substances are entirely harmless (and in some ways fashionable).

We've gone from placing the entire burden of marital commitment onto women towards a hypersexual society driven by the (often exploitative) pornography industry.

Christian morality has been (mis)used for centuries as a tool of domination, but we must counter this by raising our standards, not lowering them. Tolerance leaves a man to rot as long as he sins within his bounds; understanding shines a light on the path to overcome his demons.

On the flipside, those who wish to uphold these standards must be vigilant in ensuring they are applied properly. Don't celebrate or downplay behavior in one group that you'd find unacceptable in another. We are all expected to uphold a common responsibility.

While I think there's merit to the argument that progressives dominate the vast majority of cultural institutions (ala Moldbug's Cathedral), I don't think conservatives have done themselves any favors with how they've responded to the takeover.

Instead of bothering to build up an actual presence there, they spend their time dismissing every field which shapes culture. Science, art, academia, media, the mere mention of these are met with the idea that they're either rigged or worthless so why try?

This extends to reactionaries too. Throughout history we've had conservative intellectuals, conservative artists, etc. and they've proven to be successful counterweights, But now they spend so much time trying to take poltiical power that they don't notice their shrinking ground.

It's easier for a hypocrite to give up his principle than his vice.

I think one of the things fundamentalists tend to subconsciously forget is that the Bible is *actual* history, which is supposed to provide *actual* guidance to *actual* people.

Any application of Scripture to problems in either our daily lives or our society which presents itself purely as some abstract moral framework as opposed to the Living Word of God ends up inadvertently undermining its real authority by treating it as something distinct from this realm.

I've generally held to an axiom that any time you have widespread alcoholism among a populace it's probably one of the best signs their situation is untenable.

It sounds obvious but drinking gets so normalized whether it be among the working class, wine moms, or even certain cultures (like what goes on in Soviet and post-Soviet societies).

I think one of the biggest issues I have with the whole "truscum" mentality is that it's essentially just punching down for what are fundamentally optical reasons.

Which is rather myopic in the large picture given how trans people have historically been considered an optical burden to LGB people, who in turn have been considered a burden to the women's rights movement, etc.

The whole reason any LGBT person has political leverage is because of that solidarity, because there wasn't this constant fear of "how it'll look" or the constant throwing of others under the bus to prove that they're normal. There's a certain hypocrisy in accepting that charity but arbitrarily denying it to lower on the social totem pole to save one's own skin. And if left unchecked it'll backfire on everyone involved.

And to clarify, all this is directed at those primarily driven by optics. Any minority is still an individual who should still ideally be given room to develop their worldview organically, even if circumstance tends to often push them disproportionately to one side.

The important thing here is that there's a significant difference between a person's views being guided by matters of conscience/religion/science than by whatever best appeases mainstream society at a given time. The former is understandable, whereas the latter is plain cowardly.

I feel like the biggest hurdle for me currently is my limited networking. The sort of stuff I work on and wish to accomplish is way too much for one person to learn or even finish in a reasonable period of time.

On top of that, there's few people in my circles who seem interested enough in the stuff I do to give proper feedback. I can't help sometimes but wonder if I'm shouting into the void.

There's this constant balancing act in my head between making content I can be proud of (mediums/subjects which may not be as popular, slow turnaround time) and finding a way to get enough engagement that I feel as if I'm actually interacting with others.

A thread of what I view as the biggest issues facing Fediverse platforms, their importance, and what needs to be done to fix them.

1: Instance Centralization. As it stands, smaller instances aren't reliable enough to stay on, resulting in either dissatisfaction or crowding on popular instances. Platforms need to implement for full-fledged instance migration tools (and possibly auto-backup). Curated, easily navigable and accessible lists of instances would help greatly too. We have some of this in place, but none of it is what I'd consider seamless yet.

2: Content Drought. On creator-centric platforms like PeerTube and PixelFed, the draw is only as good as the content pool. Creating and maintaining instances which are attractive to publish on, poaching smaller creators who show promise, and promoting existing Fediverse creators to the viewers on these platforms can go a long way towards that end.

3: Spam. Better moderation tools would help here (lacking in WriteFreely and BookWyrm AFAIK), but perhaps some filters which check against the posts/bios/names of accounts. Maybe pre-emptively collecting a database of spam accounts would help in creating a reference set.

4. Guides. Currently there's still a lot of technical jargon in welcome videos and I've seen a lot of people who are into Fedi but aren't aware of most platforms apart from Mastodon. Doing a better job of connecting prospective users to communities they'd fit in would help too.

This may sound demanding/presumptuous; I acknowledge that but due to the nature of threads and character limits, I really can't go into the specifics or nuance of the topic. I plan to in a blogpost later on. I've also been doing some work towards these ends wherever I can and hope to highlight it as an example of what can be done.

Starting to develop a partiality towards the KJV partly due to its status in the public domain but also because of formal equivalence. One of the key developments of the Reformation was the responsibility placed on individuals to understand Scripture and verify doctrine.

Translations which are meaning-centric leave the matter of interpretation in the hands of translators. If there's ambiguity regarding a passage, the recourse should be to consult lexicons, commentaries, the rest of Scripture, and the historical context.

This may prove to be more effort, but for us Protestants the critical process and widespread hermeunetical competency is the only way we can ensure the correctness of teachings rather than just taking local religious authorities at their word.

Currently going through Dikoetter's book on the Cultural Revolution. The whole thing keeps oscillating between comedic and morbid as the events unfold.

There's a lot to be taken away about how easily revolutionary fervor can be conjured and channeled, especially by charismatic leaders. We reflect upon the 60s/70s as a time of upheaval and grassroots movement but it was also a time of joiners, propaganda, and cults.

This tendency for people to join the mob without reflection proves vital for revolutionary mobility, but it also comes at the expense of playing with fire when it comes to people's critical capacities.

Propaganda may be easier to mass-produce and spoonfeed, but it warps man's mental faculties. For a movement which bases itself on the "ruthless criticism of all that exists" this can prove dangerous.

Populists and charismatics deal entirely in lies, for their very foundation is a lie. How can we possibly outcompete them in the propoganda game? Whatever denouncements socialists have of Mao as an individual are overshadowed by the fact that their tactics paved the way for him.

There's a certain sense of bleak irony in the fact that even neoconservatives have been consumed by the end of history. The idea of spreading liberal democracy to every country seems just as much of a pipedream as spreading communism.

The most they can talk about now isn't a "new world order" but containing China and maintaining regional stability, which is still difficult to sell to a public which is convinced that where liberal democracy doesn't exist, it will never exist. Even the US, which persisted even through the 00s, seems to be following Europe's lead in a domestic turn. Both the American left and right have abandoned exceptionalism as a principle.

It's like they're being mugged by reality all over again.

Does it really matter whether or not predestination is real? Regardless of the answer, the command given to us remains the same; these grand questions are for the Lord to handle. We are still to act, bearing the sense of duty of one who has all the free will in the world.

Perhaps it makes for an "interesting" intellectual exercise, but the reflection will lead nowhere, only giving room for the individual to postpone action.

If reactionaries were serious about combatting social decay, they'd engage with critical theory rather than circlejerking over "trad" iconography. Their fear of immanent critique renders them powerless against the march of modernity, only able to ever grasp things in mere form rather than essence. They'd rather cling to a false foundation than pass through the uncertainty that leads us to the truth.

Pretty interesting article regarding attempts to engineer a viable cryptocurrency. One of the best takeaways from this is that the crypto fad is essentially tech-nerds having to relearn centuries-old lessons in economics.

SocDems have a terrible habit of neglecting the fact that in a globalized world, economies have to be considered in relation to the larger world-system. The distribution of labor, resources, and capital across countries isn't symmetrical by any means.

One of the reasons the Nordic model works so well is because the Nordic countries aren't afflicted by the resource curse. The area is a capital hub, so there's focus on improving living standards as to attract human capital.

An economy can't be founded on capital alone however. Countries which provide resources and labor to the global market often take the brunt of economic fluctuation and often don't feel pressed to improve general living conditions.

Regardless of whether or not we consider this to be overt "imperialism" as the charge constantly leveled, the fact is that our supply chain is comprised of various dependencies and divisions, which develop an inherently lopsided relationship between the periphery and the core.

Art is a form of two-way communication. Its meaning is just as much dependent on the audience as it is on the creator.

On one hand, it is inherently political in that it has to be considered in the social context of its creation and consumption. Often times these clues can help us in developing an analysis which cuts deeper to its meaning. Criticism is applicable to all forms of art, high and low.

However, at the same time, the audience is capable of appropriating and shaping its meaning from their own personal relationship to it. This is important because it breaks down the barrier between consumer and producer, allowing for a reciprocal relationship to emerge.

A creator can have a history or hold views which are toxic without it poisoning the art itself. It's dependent on what facets of their character and environment reflect in the work itself, and how we ourselves are capable of engaging with and transforming that meaning.

One of the damning things for ancaps IMO is the network effect. Historically the foundation for infastructure networks such as the internet and highways had to be centrally planned in order to solve the issue of actually making it into the standard.

It's the same with fiat currency. Confidence is backed by the state's force. You look at all these alternative cryptocurrencies and we see that they're simply not functional as day-to-day currencies.

Yes, the market can append to pre-planned networks (such as private Swedish roads) or develop commodities for it (such as cars), but that in no way means the market can replace the government's role in the coordination.

(It should also be noted that private Swedish roads carry only 4 percent of the nation's traffic.)

The church should not go with the world (as progressive Christians assume) or apart from it (as conservative Christians assume), but rather instead against it.

Christianity is a universal and missionary religion; we maintain our faith and develop our identity in our struggle against the world. Coexistence, whether it be through assimilation or separation is completely contrary to the very essence of the Gospel.

Integralism presumes secular and religious powers can be merged, but in the process the church is subordinated to the state, regardless of initial intentions. This is what the Reformers realized.

However, the political-religious pluralism they proposed lead to the marginalization of religion to the private sphere, taking away oxygen from a mission which presupposes the convergence of the private and public. The only solution is the annihilation of secular power.

Show older — a friendly social networking space for those with an interest in Catholicism.